Aadhaar and UPA govt's obsession for private sector benefits–Part 12

The vision statement of Aadhaar states: “use of UID to speed up certain businesses, especially in the insurance and credit sectors, may eliminate the need for private sector to set-up parallel identification systems leading to improved efficiency in delivery of their services and a reduction in identity-related frauds in the service delivery”

Supreme Court bench of Dr Justice BS Chauhan and Justice SA Bobde heard the case against 12-digit Aadhaar/ unique identification (UID) number for biometric profiling on 26 November 2013. The next date of hearing is on 10 December 2013. Raj Pal Singh, director, Planning Commission has filed the counter affidavit in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833 of 2013 (Aruna Roy Vs Union of India providing the backdrop of the establishment of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). It is evident from the counter affidavit that it is directed towards the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and attempts to underline in the Court that there is bipartisan support for UID/ Aadhaar number project.

 

The counter affidavit argues that UIDAI was set up in furtherance of the recommendations of the Group of Ministers (GoM) on Reforming the National Security System were accepted by the BJP-led government besides the recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee and the amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 notified on 7 January 2004. GoM under the chairmanship of LK Advani also included the Defence Minister, External Affairs Minister and Finance Minister. The report was submitted to PM on 26 February 2001. The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had considered the GOM report on 11 May 2001.

 

The counter affidavit based on inputs from Census Commissioner-cum-Registrar General of India, National Population Register (NPR), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) underlines that “the need for creation of a credible citizen database having a system secure form of personal identification of individuals has acquired importance due to a variety of reasons which include:

a) changing security scenario in the country, (b) realisation for better targeting of services and benefits under different schemes of government, and c) increasing identity frauds.”

 

It refers to the ‘provision for a secure “cyber-space” for creation of NPR, handling and transmission of data between the local service centers and national data centers” which was presented to the Committee of Secretaries (COS) in October 2006. The studied silence of the counter affidavit about how “secure cyber-space” has turned out to be a myth in the post Wikileaks and in post-Snowden era is quite stark.

 

Chronologically, it is revealed that “the concept of a unique identification was first discussed in 2006 when administrative approval for the project – ‘Unique ID for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families” was given on 3 March 2006 by the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.” A Processes Committee under Planning Commission was set up on 3 July 2006 to suggest processes for creation for the “core database”.
 

The counter affidavit states that COS was “apprised about the Unique Identification Number (UID) scheme of the Department of Information Technology (DIT) for creation of a residents’ database based on the electoral rolls database of Election Commission of India...”. It adds that the rest of the population (was to) be covered during Census 2011 to prepare National Population Register (NPR).

 

The fourth meeting of EGoM to collate two schemes- National Population Register (NPR/MNC) under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Unique Identification Number (UID) project of the Department of Information Technology (DIT) held on 4 November 2008 at 162, Committee Room, South Block. MNC stands for Multi-purpose National Identity Card based on NPR, which was envisaged during the tenure of BJP-led government. As per the minutes of the meeting, chairman of the EGoM, Pranab Mukherjee, the then Minister of External Affairs concluded that “It also needs to be appreciated that the whole exercise being technology based and system driven, there is immense scope far outsourcing the data collation and validation work and other tasks to expert agencies in the public or private sector through a transparent process while retaining requisite control over sovereign functions.”

 

In the context, he mentioned the Passport Seva Project where retaining the sovereign functions within government (MEA) rest of the infrastructure, management and software development functions have been outsourced through a transparent process to private sector. Mukherjee stated that the UID project is unique in that the organization (UIDAI) has to work in close collaboration with large number of institutions and agencies both within and outside the government and will take at least five years to stabilize. The government at that time may need to take a fresh view particularly in light of further advancements in technology. This keeps the door open for DNA based identification. 

 

A 14-page long document titled ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd and submitted to the Processes Committee has finally emerged. Its vision statement reads: “Creating a unique identification system of all residents in the country for efficient, transparent, reliable and effective delivery of various welfare and private services to the common person.” The cover page of the document mentions National Institute for Smart Government, DIT and Wipro Consulting. The ‘Strategic Vision on the UIDAI Project’ of Wipro Ltd, the consultant for the design phase and program management phase of the pilot UIDAI project. It envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI would have to the electoral database. On 4 December 2006, the Prime Minister constituted an E-GoM comprising of Shivraj V Patil, Minister of Home Affairs, A Raja, Minister of Communications & Information Technology under the Chairmanship of Pranab Mukherjee, the then Minister of External Affairs. Doesn’t the presence of Raja as a member of EGoM and as the minister-in-charge of DIT which is/ was responsible for UID make the entire exercise tainted and create a rationale for re-visiting DIT’s proposal advanced in 2006 before the COS? 

 

At the first meeting of the EGoM on 7 November 2007, “the need for creating an identity related resident database and identify and establish and institutional mechanism that will “own” the database and will be responsible for its maintenance and updating on an ongoing basis post its creation was recognized.” The proposal of UIDAI was approved on 28 January 2008. Pursuant to a meeting held on 25 January 2012 under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, “UIDAI was allowed to enroll 60 crore number by EFC which was formally approved by the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI in its meeting on 27 January 2012.” The fact remains Prime Minister is yet to reveal whether he and his family members have enrolled for biometric UID/ Aadhaar number.

 

Earlier, Prime Minister’s Council on UIDAI constituted on 30 July 2009 under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister held its first meeting on 12 August 2009 after Nandan Nilekani assumed charge as the chairperson in the rank and status of a cabinet minister. After that a Cabinet Committee on UIDAI was constituted on 22 October 2009. In a related development, Goolam E Vahanavati, Attorney General for India gave his written opinion on 6 August 2011 stating, “I do not consider the issuance of Aadhaar numbers to be a violation of right to privacy contained in Article 21 of the Constitution.” Wipro Ltd, Consultant of Planning Commission as part of a section titled ‘Implementation challenges’ refers to the issue of Transparency vs. right to privacy. The basic premise for the success of UID is the concept of “one owner, many users”, according to the document. But as of now the fact is that there are multiple owners of the database both inside and outside the government.

 

Notably, Wipro, the Consultant of Planning Commission states that “It is envisaged that, in the long term, UID would transform into being a de facto identifier for all residents of the country.” Its document states that “Importantly, statutory backing would be required for the adoption of UID by residents, Government departments, its agencies and the private sector in the long term. But as of now UID is conceptualized as de facto identifier and not a de jure identifier.  This document has a section “Benefits to private/NGO Sector” wherein it states that “Private sector would be able to leverage the resident identification infrastructure and in turn, contribute to effective development activities, Use UID to speed up certain businesses, especially in the insurance and credit sectors, may eliminate the need for private sector to set-up parallel identification systems leading to improved efficiency in delivery of their services and a reduction in identity-related frauds in the service delivery.” Why this Congress led Government so obsessed with ensuring benefits for private/NGO sector using citizens’ personal sensitive information?  

 

Ravi Shankar Prasad, member of Parliament, (MP), general secretary and chief spokesperson, BJP issued a statement on behalf of the party dated 21 January 2012 on the subject of “UID & National Security”? The question is did he carefully read the report of the Yashwant Sinha headed Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance that was submitted to both the Houses of Parliament in December 2011. It appears that he and his party has not done so. Had it done so it would have realized that “preparation of Unique Identification Number (UID) (Aadhaar) being prepared by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)” itself is legally and constitutionally questionable. BJP maintains a deafening silence over the issue of illegal and illegitimate biometric data collection. This was an issue categorically raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and its Prime Ministerial candidate. Arun Jaitely also raised deep concerns about privacy in Aadhaar era in writing.  
 

BJP has asked the Indian National Congress led Government as to ‘What is the “Sanctity and integrity of the data” being collected by the UIDAI?’ Will a solemn reply by the Government stating that the “sanctity and integrity” of data in general and biometric data in particular being collected is being taken care assure and satisfy the principal opposition party? Is it looking for merely an assurance? Why is it choosing to be complicit about the illegality of biometric profiling as has been pointed out by the Parliamentary Committee? Will it continue with the illegality if it wins the 2014 elections? Its silence in this regard is quite glaring.
 

Why is BJP mixing up the issue of “National Register of Indian Citizens” and the identification of residents of India as proposed by biometric Aadhaar/ UID? The principal opposition party appears convinced about a need for a centralized database of citizens’ sensitive personal for “National Security”.

 

In its affidavit on UID/ Aadhaar number based biometric identification, the Congress-led Government has trapped the main opposition party in a political trap by paraphrasing what BJP- led government had articulated and undertaken when they were in power. This affidavit is also an attempt to give a political message to the Parliamentary Committee in question that both BJP and Congress essentially have similar position on biometric profiling of Indians and BJP’s opposition is merely a token opposition to justify its role as the principal opposition party. Notably, BJP is yet to take a position that if it wins 2014 elections it will dismantle the Aadhaar project as it suffers from democracy deficit.    

 

Meanwhile, on 26 November 2013, the Supreme Court gave an order that reads: "After hearing the matter at length, we are of the view that all the States and Union Territories have to be impleaded as respondents to give effective directions.  In view of these notices to be issued to all the states and union territories through standing counsel. The advocates who have already entered appearance must file their replies within a period of three days from today. Learned standing counsel for the states who were not represented may take instructions from their respective states and file their response within one week."

 

The Court refused to modify its order its order of 23 September 2013 stating that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory. Its modification was sought by the central government implying that it wanted to make it mandatory. This is contrary to the written opinion of Attorney General for India dated 6 August 2011 wherein he stated, because “…participation in the Scheme is voluntary”, it is not a violation of right to privacy.    


Citizens and states must note that it is not a question of Aadhaar number being voluntary or mandatory, which seems to be the focus of the proposed resolution in the West Bengal State Assembly. It is a question of citizens being turned into subjects using illegal and illegitimate biometric Aadhaar number.

 

You may also want to read…

 

Why biometric identification of citizens must be resisted? Part I
 

Biometric identification is modern day enslavement -Part II
 

Biometric profiling, including DNA, is dehumanising -Part III
 

Marketing and advertising blitzkrieg of biometric techies and supporters -Part IV
 

History of technologies reveals it is their owners who are true beneficiaries -Part V
 

UID's promise of service delivery to poor hides IT, biometrics industry profits –Part VI
 

Technologies and technology companies are beyond regulation? -Part VII
 

Surveillance through biometrics-based Aadhaar –Part VIII
 

Narendra Modi biometrically profiled. What about Congress leaders?-Part IX
 

Aadhaar: Why opposition ruled states are playing partner for biometric UID? -Part X

 

Is Nandan Nilekani acting as an agent of non-state actors? –Part XI

 

(Gopal Krishna is member of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), which is campaigning against surveillance technologies since 2010)

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Chingkheinganba

5 years ago

MY govt. spying on me :(

Next to the US spy project India launch a new Spy project towards it's own second largest population

Ravi S

5 years ago

Opponents of Aadhaar believe that snooping / surveillance cannot be done without Aadhaar. Narendra Modi (CM of Gujarat) did the extensive (every minute) snooping of a female Architect (his alleged girl-friend) not only on land but also in airplane in the year-2009 i.e. before existence of Aadhaar. How this snoop-gate happened? Because intentions of the powerful in government matter a lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinio...
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/s...
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-electron...
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/...

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

In addition, just think as per your wording "Because intentions of the powerful in government matter a lot!"...
NOW think (if you have the organ for this), what the UID can do to demolish/destroy you!

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

Well...well...well!
Looks like the PR of UIDAI ( or pvt contractor, who is suffering from such articles) is on a big HIT job again today.

Anyway...just give answers to two simple questions...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporate !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

BTW....Get well soon, CONgressi from the NaMofobia... LOL

Ravi S

5 years ago

Transgender MumbaiOne, please do not hide behind burqa of pseudonym. And learn to write substance, not just release gas.

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

BTW...Is something missing before the S in your name? like A*s? Transgender KING..sorry AKKA!

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

ANSWERS PLS....

1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporates like Ravi S !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

Ravi S

5 years ago

Opponents of Aadhaar believe that snooping / surveillance cannot be done without Aadhaar. Then how Narendra Modi (CM of Gujarat) did the extensive snooping (every minute) of a girl not only on land but also in airplane in year-2009 i.e. before existence of Aadhaar? Intention of the powerful matters a lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinio...
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/s...
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-electron...
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/...

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

BTW...What Narendra Modi has to do with this? Or you CONgressi can't think without him?
LOL

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

Well...well...well!
Looks like the PR of UIDAI ( or pvt contractor, who is suffering from such articles) is on a big HIT job again today.

Anyway...just give answers to two simple questions...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporate !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

Ravi S

5 years ago

Corrupts wants privacy to commit corruption so that they are not tracked and caught later.

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

Well...well...well!
Looks like the PR of UIDAI ( or pvt contractor, who is suffering from such articles) is on a big HIT job again today.

Anyway...just give answers to two simple questions...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporate !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

Ravi S

In Reply to Mumbai One 5 years ago

First, do not hide yourself behind burqa i.e. pseudo name. Tell your real name. Male, female or transgender (hizra)? Looks like transg.....

Second, tell what corruption you have to hide.

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

No Point in getting Angry old man...

Just give answers to two simple questions if you have guts...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

Ravi S

5 years ago

Aadhaar status {verifiable with UIDAI website portal (dot) uidai (dot) gov (dot) in}
People registered: Over 600 million (60.0 crore) i.e. Half the population,
Aadhaar assigned: About 500 million (50.0 crore),
Population of India: 1250 million (125 crore or 1.25 billion),
Average Aadhaar rate: 30 million/ month,
Milestone planned: 600 million Aadhaar by March-2014 (easily achievable @ 1 million / day),
Remaining Enrollment of 650 million continues thru NPR (Ministry of Home Affairs - Census Operations - RGI) in illegal migrant infested states and populous states like UP, Bihar, J&K, W. Bengal, TN, Arunachal, Assam, Mizoram etc. Enrollment thru NPR is done only for Citizens after weeding out the Illegal migrants.

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

Well...well...well!
Looks like the PR of UIDAI ( or pvt contractor, who is suffering from such articles) is on a big HIT job again today.

Anyway...just give answers to two simple questions...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporate !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

Ravi S

5 years ago

Privacy of corruption?
Some privacy champions raise the privacy issue which is irrelevant in a poor country like India where about 750 million people starve for 2-square meal, where illiteracy is high, where religion & caste-based-bias continues, rampant corruption & exploitation exists. They forget that India has a law called Information Technology Act 2000. It has been in existence since year 2000 that protects Aadhaar information along with other laws.

Aadhaar registration collects biometric data and bare minimum information (proof of identity, age, and residence) through enrollment form. Peruse the Enrollment-form with data fields on page-1 and instructions on page-2. No profiling information is collected, like religion, caste, income, property-holding, education etc.

Privacy issues and risks equally apply to information and data (with or without biometrics) provided by people to census office, tax office, passport office, driving license, vehicle registration, land and building registration, registration of birth, marriage and death, employers (current, past and prospective), banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, telephone service provider, television service provider, internet service provider, internet services (email, video, social media, search engine, chat, voice, file-storage and transfer etc.), registration at school/college, marriage bureaus, post-office and courier services, hospital registration and medical records, visa of US and UK etc.

In India, government departments, public and private sectors have been using biometrics (fingerprints, blood group, color of eyes, height, weight and face photo) for various purposes for decades and centuries in some or all offices. Biometrics record has been a mandatory condition for employment with civil services and Defense departments (10 fingerprints, face photo, color of eyes, blood group, height, weight) since British era to the modern day; nowadays it is also used for access and attendance. Examples of fingerprints usage in other areas are: Land and building registration (since British era), Planning Commission (for access and attendance), census office (for compulsory NPR), Passport, RTO (for driving license), insurance companies, IT, BPO and healthcare companies (for access and attendance), visa of US and UK etc. Aadhaar does not violate any privacy or fundamental right.

India has seen anti-modernization protests in the past too. Some people caused bandh & hartals in protest against modernization and computerization of Banking & Rail-ticket 25 years ago. Today people are very happy to enjoy bank ATM and to book rail-ticket from anywhere. Then they had argued that paper records were better than computers. Now those protesters never want to reveal that they ever protested against computerization.
Ironically, there is no opposition to collection of biometric data at other points of services. People stand in long queues to imprint biometrics for obtaining Indian passport, US, UK visa. The attendance & access of most of the IT & ITeS companies are biometric based. The attendance & access of the Planning Commission of India is also biometric based. People have been imprinting all ten-fingers plus details of eyes and other identification marks on body on the first day of joining employment in Defense department of India (civilian as well as service personnel) since British rule of India. Yet one never opposed all that.
The use of electronic devices provides no privacy; such as mobile phone, internet (particularly social network media), email, television, bank card, traffic camera. At any moment the government and the service provider knows of geographical location of people, of conversation on phone, with whom, what we are reading, writing or watching on internet, and what TV channel we are watching, when and for how long. All this is done under electronic surveillance thru device identifiers like IMEI, IP address, GPS etc.

Embassies have switched over to mechanical type-writers in 2013 after CIA worker Snowden’s disclosures. Government also knows our movements thru the traffic cameras on roads, our vehicle number plate, our face etc.
Despite this knowledge, the privacy champions do not want to stop using mobile phones, internet, TV etc. Their sole objective is subversion of Aadhaar, nothing else, and they will not succeed because Aadhaar has already crossed the critical-mass on 15-Aug-2013 by enrolling about 450 million people, assigning 400 million Numbers and linking 30 million bank accounts for Direct Benefit Transfer across many states. And as of November-2013, 500 million Aadhaar have been assigned.

Opponents of Aadhaar believe that snooping / surveillance cannot be done without Aadhaar. Then how Narendra Modi (CM of Gujarat) did the extensive snooping (every minute) of a girl not only on land but also in airplane in year-2009 i.e. before existence of Aadhaar? Intention of the powerful matters a lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinio...
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/s...
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-electron...
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/...

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

Well...well...well!
Looks like the PR of UIDAI ( or pvt contractor, who is suffering from such articles) is on a big HIT job again today.

Anyway...just give answers to two simple questions...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporate !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

Ravi S

5 years ago

As the public databases are getting inter-linked one by one thru Aadhaar Number in various States (particularly Delhi, Maharashtra, Andhra), we see the following effects:
1. Middlemen & Officials are finding difficult to continue with corruption in public welfare pensions, scholarships, public health, NREGA, subsidy on PDS Ration, Kerosene, LPG etc.
2. Ineligible, duplicate and fictitious beneficiaries are getting eliminated from public welfare programs.
3. Corrupts will find difficult to buy & sell benami land & building (i.e.under fictitious name).
4. Corrupts will find difficult to open & operate benami companies for money-laundering.
5. Corrupts will find difficult to open & operate benami bank accounts for keeping black-money.
6. Tax-evaders will find difficult to evade taxes.
7. Impersonation & proxy will be difficult to commit.
8. Criminals & Terrorists will get detected and tracked thru inter-linked databases of mobile phone, bank account, travel documents etc.
9. Illegal Immigrants will get detected and tracked thru inter-linked databases of mobile phone, bank account, travel documents etc. They will have no place to hide on Indian soil.
10. It will get difficult for Criminals to hide as records are getting accessible to Police from any State of India.
11. It will get difficult to obtain another new Driving License and Arms License from another State once it got impounded.
12. Fraudsters will not be able to steal Provident Fund money.
13. Onion Hoarders will get tracked easily.
14. Dummy candidates will not be able to write competitive exams for others for the sake of money.
15. Ineligible people will not be able to misuse the certificates of income, domicile, education degrees and caste to deprive the eligible people.

REPLY

Mumbai One

In Reply to Ravi S 5 years ago

Well...well...well!
Looks like the PR of UIDAI ( or pvt contractor, who is suffering from such articles) is on a big HIT job again today.

Anyway...just give answers to two simple questions...
1. Who owns the UID database? Is it the Indian govt or private agencies/firms?
2. Which is the law that regulates the collection of biometric data, and Aadhaar itself? Don\'t hide behind the lapsed executive order as any such thing become irrelevant after six months.

All this information is being collected for sale to the corporate !

Who will then squeeze the pulp out of us to the very skin and then sell us even our air and the water !

Don't make Aadhaar compulsory says CPI (M)

CPI (M) said the decision of oil companies to make Aadhaar-linked bank account compulsory for LPG subsidy is unacceptable as only 25% of the country's population had so far obtained the UID

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M) has asked the Indian government to withdraw its decision to make unique identification (UID) number or Aadhaar compulsory for providing various benefits like cooking gas subsidy to citizens.

 

The Kerala state plenum of CPI (M) adopted a resolution in its meeting at Palakkad on Thursday. The resolution alleged that Aadhaar had been made compulsory by the Centre without having the backing of any parliamentary legislation and in disregard to the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court on the issue.

 

"The government has been pressurising the people to open bank accounts and link them to Aadhaar. Instead of allowing the people to open zero-balance accounts, many banks are insisting they should deposit Rs500 to Rs1,000 to open accounts," CPI(M) said.

 

Though a bill was introduced in Parliament on the matter, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee to which it was referred, had negated the salient provisions of the bill, the resolution said.

 

It said, "The decision of oil companies to make Aadhaar-linked bank account compulsory for cooking gas subsidy is unacceptable as only 25% of the country's population had so far obtained the Aadhaar. This means that the vast majority of the people are anxious whether they would continue to receive the benefits for which they are entitled."

 

CPI (M) alleged that it is part of the government's neo-liberal policy of phasing out subsidies and welfare payments.

 

"The Government's decision to set a time-frame for linking the benefits with Aadhaar has caused serious concern among the beneficiaries of various welfare schemes," the resolution added.

User

COMMENTS

MOHAN

5 years ago




Malabar Gold does not have a branch in Tripura. But they have paid 12 lakhs to CPI (M) (National Election Watch)

Malabar Gold paid 12 lakhs rupees from the 4th floor Office paid 10 lakhs Chq No. 651439 dated 22.3.2012. From the 3rd floor office they have paid 2 lakhs to CPI (M) chq no. 648188 dated 25.1.2012. Though the floors are different the company (malabar gold) is the same. The accounts are different.

http://www.marunadanmalayali.com/index.p...


For the CPI (M) party congress held at Calicut Malabar Gold paid 25 lakhs.


Please read money life articles:

Malabar Gold: From Rs50 lakh to Rs22,000 crore in just 20 years!

http://www.moneylife.in/article/malabar-...


Malabar Gold raided by DRI in connection with smuggling link?

http://www.moneylife.in/article/malabar-...

J H Gohil

5 years ago

CPI(M)'s request/demand is 100% valid. Many LPG connection holders are not earning that much that they can open the account in bank and operate the same. Other way, if they open the account, they can't make transaction for months and in bank's term, the account become dormant. Otherway, the existing system is very good and there willnot be any burden of paying more than Rs.900/-, Govt. will credit subsidy amount. THis is very bonus idea.

How Supreme Court issued notices to state governments over Aadhaar

What happened in the Supreme Court  on Tuesday as the judges heard a public interest litigation that challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued notices to state governments to explain their stance on making the unique identity (UID) number, Aadhaar compulsory.

 

Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar number being issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the apex court opined that it would not want to be in a situation where a state government would later plead that they were not given an opportunity to be heard.

 

Shyam Divan, the counsel for Maj Gen (retd) SG Vombatkere, cited example of several States which made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of host of services. For instance, he said in Kerala and Himachal Pradesh, admissions to school required students to have Aadhaar. Maharashtra recently made Aadhaar compulsory for government employees to draw their salary and pay slips. Madhya Pradesh followed the Centre’s diktat to make Aadhaar mandatory for receiving pension and provident fund benefits in three districts while Himachal Pradesh linked the Aadhaar scheme to offer scholarships in universities.

 

The bench of Justices BS Chauhan and SA Bobde was initially of the view that the petitioners are only bothered by the government making UID compulsory. So, the Bench asked Divan, “If we order that it cannot make it mandatory, would you have a case?”

 

Divan replied that the issues are deeper and he needs time to explain the whole scheme. The Aadhaar project, the senior advocate said, was ultra vires as it did not have a statutory backing. Moreover, no statutory guidance exists on crucial questions such as—who can collect biometric information, how it is to be collected and stored, protection of collected data, who can use the data and when it must be used.

 

The Supreme Court then asked, “Would you have a case if Parliament passes a law giving UID legal status?” Divan replied that even if the Constitution is amended, UID would be illegal.

 

Divan then took the court through the flow chart of how UID enrolments are done, the kind of private companies are involved and the dangers of the scheme. He pointed out how UIDAI signed memorandum of understanding with States which had no legal sanctity. He said, State appoints registrars, who could even be a private person, who engaged private companies to collect biometric data. There is also the fear that the private party which collects the data then stores it in a personal laptop, which does not belong to the government.

 

The counsel for Maj Gen (retd) Vombatkere, then briefly mentioned some abuses which could be carried out using UID.

 

He brought out how if a password of an ATM card was compromised, the cardholder could change the password, but if one's fingerprints or iris (biometrics) are the passwords, then the person whose password is compromised has no remedy. The court wanted to know the definition of biometrics in UID and spent some time studying it.

 

He also told the apex court about how UID changes the relationship between the state and the citizen. Convicted criminals relinquish some privacy rights. They have their fingerprints taken for record. Here the government is treating all people as criminals. One of the judges on the bench was very interested in this line of argument and asked many probing questions.

 

Interestingly, neither the UIDAI nor union government have filed any counter to the PIL. They have not denied any of the allegations made in the petition by Maj Gen (retd) Vombatkere and Col (retd) Matthew Thomas.

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Yerram Raju Behara

5 years ago

The vocal protagonist of AADHAR can defend in the Court with these arguments if he can prove all his highly preposterous defense. If this is so powerful, can he say why the instrument has not been experimented for payments to all contractors; why the MPs and MLAs salaries and all other allowances and bonanza not linked to AADHAR? Why the experiment has been done with the poor, the pensioners, the workers under MNREGA and the like whose grievances on AADHAR can never reach the authorities as they do not have systems to access for putting in their complaints?
I have no issues in so far as a smart card like this if properly created, secured and made citizen friendly, it can reduce corruption and favouritism. The question is that the instrument has faulty platform to deliver and deaf ears to listen to the problems of access and self-centered protagonists.

Yerram Raju Behara

5 years ago

It is good to see the Judges evincing interest in getting at the root of the issues with probing questions on the Aadhar linkage. This instrument has more scope to generate frauds and leakages.In one village in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh where the PM launched Aadhar, with the film producer Rajmouli’s photograph embedded on another person with wrong address was issued. In the same district another card was issued with a fake name and fake address in the name a fruit vendor and bazaar address were issued with a photograph too!! There are galore of spelling mistakes either in surname or the name itself. Corrections to these would not get initiated by the authorities concerned. A complaint to customer care of Aadhar gets a stereotyped reply that it would be attended in 48hours. After 48hours you get a reply that does not address the issue at all for the central complaints department either does not have the operating agency details or even if it has, does not care to refer the complaint for redress. When the educated themselves do not get proper response to their complaints to expect that the poor would get attention on such complaints is asking for the moon.

Adding to this the Banks are intermediaries in the whole effort. Several banks have everyday new issues with Banking Correspondents and there are leakages that they are grappling with to resolve.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)