Home » » Following Supreme Court's order issuance of biometric aadhaar/UID number should be stopped

Following Supreme Court's order issuance of biometric aadhaar/UID number should be stopped

Written By Gopal Krishna on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 | 9:19 AM

To

Dr Manmohan Singh
Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related
issues
Prime Minister's Council on UIDAI
Government of India
New Delhi

Shri A.K. Antony, Minister of Defence
Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards \
under scheme of National Population Register (NPR)
Government of India
New Delhi

Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia,
Deputy Chairman,
Planning Commission
Special Invitee
Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues
Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under
NPR Scheme
Government of India
New Delhi

Secretary
Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
New Delhi

Dr. C. Chandramouli
Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India
Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
New Delhi

Subject-Following Supreme Court's order issuance of biometric aadhaar/UID number should be stopped

Sir,

This is to draw your attention towards Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated September 23, 2013 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 494 of 2012 in the matter of biometric aadhaar/UID number. The order was passed by the bench of Dr Justice B S Chauhan and Mr Justice S.A. Bobde.

I submit that upon hearing counsel the Court passed the order which reads "All the matters require to be heard finally. List all matters for final hearing after the Constitution Bench is over.
In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory...."

I submit that Hon;ble Court has revealed that although the attached enrolment form of Aadhaar/Unique Identification (UID) number promises on top of the form that it is free and voluntary, several central ministries and uninformed State Governments attempted to make it mandatory in a manifest case of breach of citizen's trust.

I submit that the ‘voluntary’ 12 digits Biometric Aadhaar/ UID number for creating a Central Identities Data Registry (CIDR) of ‘usual residents’ of India and for "doing government process
re-engineering" through is legally questionable.

I submit that the questionable intentions of Planning Commission’s Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) faces yet another legal and constitutional scrutiny. UIDAI has failed in the earlier examinations.

It may be recollected that Punjab and Haryana High Court bench headed by Chief Justice A K Sikri passed an order on March 2, 2013 after hearing a matter challenging a circular making Aadhaar mandatory. The moment Court raised questions of laws, the circular was withdrawn by
the central government. The decision underlined that UIDAI is legally assailable and indefensible.

I submit that UIDAI and related projects treats every Indian as a subject of surveillance unlike UK which abandoned a similar project (that used to be cited by Wipro Ltd in promotion of UID) because it is "untested, unreliable and unsafe technology” and the” possible risk to the safety
and security of citizens.” It was recorded by Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance that submitted a report to both the Houses of Parliament on December 13, 2011 trashing the biometric identification project and the post facto legislation to legalize UIDAI and its acts of omission and commission since January 28, 2009 till the passage of The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010. Notably, UK Home Secretary explained that they were
abandoning the project because it would otherwise be 'intrusive bullying' by the state, and that the government intended to be the 'servant' of the people, and not their 'master'.

I submit that the silence of Wipro Ltd which had prepared the ‘Strategic Vision on the UIDAI Project’ document and submitted to the processes committee of the Planning Commission set up in July 2006 is deafening. This document too seems to be missing from public domain.

I submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court's order vindicates the Punjab and Haryana High Court
order, PSC report and the Statement of Concern dated September 28, 2010 issued by 17 eminent citizens including Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Prof Romila Thapar, Late Shri SR Sankaran, Justice AP Shah, Late Shri KG Kannabiran, Shri Bezwada Wilson, Smt Aruna Roy and Prof Upendra Baxi seeking halting of the project.

I submit that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation is also seized with the compliant on “Subordinate Legislation for Biometric Identity Card NRIC and Aadhhar/UID is illegal & illegitimate and Constitutional, Legal, Historical & Technological Reasons Against UID/Aadhaar Scheme on 18.3.2013."

I submit that as several States are opposed to National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) citing erosion of State’s autonomy but quite strangely so far they have failed to see the link between CIDR, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) and Sam Pitroda’s Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations (PIII) which are part of the same political culture that leaves intelligence agencies beyond the ambit of legislative scrutiny.

I submit that the entire issue is quite grave because the genocidal idea of biometric identification is linked with the holocaust witnessed in Germany. Such identification exercises have rightly been abandoned in UK, Australia, China, USA and France.  Notably, Shri Nandan Nilekani has admitted, "To answer the question about what is the biggest risk" of centralized database of biometric identification, he said "in some sense, you run the risk of creating a single point of failure also" in his talk at the World Bank in Washington on April 24, 2013. No one knows who would be held legally liable for such failures. Who is being held accountable for leakage of data from UIDAI at present?

It is the inevitability of such failure that led to the extermination of a large human population in Germany in the 1940s. In the case of CIDR and linked initiatives it is not the failure instead convergence of data, tracking, profiling, tagging and the violation of norms of privacy is embedded in its design.  Shri Nilekani explained at his lecture at the Bank, "First of all, this is not an ID card project. There is no card. There is a number. It's a virtual number on the cloud, and we don't give a physical card. We do send you a physical letter with your number, which you keep in your pocket, but the real value of this is the number on the cloud". The biometric number is an identifier which is used to "authenticate" and verify whether or not the person is what the person claims to be. The ridiculous thing about the Congressmen in general and supporters of the project in particular is that they do not even know as to what is aadhaar? On January 31, 2013, it came to light that members of Union Cabinet were unaware as whether it is a number or a card. Instead of facing the issue upfront, a Group of Ministers was set up to resolve it but no one knows whether it has been resolved.

I submit that World Bank’s President who introduced Shri Nilekani at the lecture expressed his patronage for the project. It is not surprising given the fact that essentially it is part of its eTransform Initiative launched in April 2010 for 14 developing countries in partnership with
transnational companies like L1, IBM and governments of France and South Korea.

I submit that almost five years of advertising and marketing by UIDAI with help of a negative coalition of bankers, biometric technology companies and a section of mainstream media that holds rights of citizens in contempt created an illusion among the uninformed citizenry that what pre-existing 15 identity proofs could not do, this illegitimate and illegal biometric identifier will be able to do.

The advocates and supporters of biometric identification who are part of the negative coalition that unconditionally and blindly supports linking of fish baits for trapping the poor in the biometric database are game for turning the all the Indians into guniea pigs for an experiment that has resulted in incineration of human beings in the past.  The fact of this experimentation is revealed from what Shri Nilekani said in his speech at the Centre for Global Development, Washington. He said, “Our view was that there was bound to be opposition. That is a given…we said in any case there is going to be a coalition of opponents. So is there a way to create a positive coalition of people who have a stake in its success? So, one of the big things here is that there is a huge coalition of, you know, organisations, governments, banks, companies, others who have a stake
now in its future. So, create a positive coalition that has the power to overpower or deal with anyone who opposes it.”

I submit that a positive coalition of progressive political parties, peoples’ movements and informed citizens will stand exposed as the collaborators of undemocratic biometric technology companies, bankers and NGOs will get a befitting reply during the upcoming elections. These bankers, companies and their collaborators lost in UK, Australia, China, France and USA; they will lose in India too.

I submit that Shri Nilekani’s method of reasoning is a case study, he says, "We came to
the conclusion that if we take sufficient data, biometric data of an individual, then that person's biometric will be unique across a billion people. Now we have to find that out. We haven't done it yet. So we'll discover it as we go along" on April 23, 2013. At his lecture at World Bank on April 24, 2013, he said, “nobody has done this before, so we are going to find out soon whether it will work or not”. No one can tell as to what is his premise and what is the inference or how is inference is deduced from the premise he has articulated.

I submit that the Strategy Overview document of the UIDAI said that "enrolment will not be mandated" but added, "This will not, however, preclude governments or registrars from mandating enrolment". It must be noted that Shri Nilekani headed several committees whose recommendations made Aadhaar mandatory.

I submit that there is something inexplicable about following multiple identities of Shri Nilekani:

1) He is head of Technology Advisory Group on Unqiue Projects (TAGUP) that proposes "private company with public purpose" and with "profit making as the motive but not profit maximising".

2) He is head of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) which is functioning without legislative approval either at the centre or in the states and has signed contracts with companies that works with Intelligence agencies.

3) He is head of Committee on Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) technology for use on National Highways that proposes Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).

4) He is head of Inter-ministerial task force to streamline the subsidy distribution mechanism

5) He is head of Government of India's IT Task Force for Power Sector

6) He is member of National Knowledge Commission

7) He is member of Review Committee of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

8) He is member of National Advisory Group on e-Governance

9) He is member of Subcommittee of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that dealt with issues related to insider trading

10) He is member of Reserve Bank of India's Advisory Group on corporate governance

11) He is member of Prime Minister's National Council on Skill Development

12) He is member of Prime Minister headed National Committee on Direct Cash Transfers

13) He is an invitee to the Cabinet Committee on UID related matters

14) He is an invitee to Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under NPR Scheme

15) He is a member of the board of governors of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)

16) He is the president of NCAER

17) He is chairman, Empowered Group, IT Infrastructure for Goods and Services Tax (GST)

The list is not exhaustive. Shri Nilekani has many more identities as a shareholder and as a former head of a corporation.

I submit that tricked by the marketing blitzkrieg, some political parties are wary of taking a position that would appear to be against pro-poor schemes not realizing that come what may the real beneficiary of this biometric identification is UIDAI which wants to meet its target of 60 crores of Indians by 2014.

I submit that amidst leakage of files from the Prime Minister’s office and leakage of public money in scam after scams, the claim of attempting to reduce leakage in the system by using questionable plumbers like Shri Nilekani does not inspire even an iota of confidence. Shri Nilekani admitted at his lecture the Centre for Global Development in Washington in April 2013 that UIDAI has "created huge opportunity for fingerprint scanners, iris readers". The purchase of these machines with money is also a leakage that merits probe. Leakage can be plugged by rigorous implementation of Right to Information Act and decentralization of decision making instead of adopting a centralization approach and technological quick fixes.

I submit that the entire Indian and international media was taken for a ride regarding a so called turf war between the Ministry of Home Affairs and UIDAI which media was made to understand that got resolved by diving the Indian population in two parts of 61 crore and 60 crore for coverage under National Population Register (NPR) which also generates Aadhaar number and UIDAI. The fact is the terms of reference of the UIDAI mandated it "take necessary steps to ensure collation of National Population Register (NPR) with UID (as per approved strategy)", to "identify new partner/user agencies", to "issue necessary instructions to agencies that undertake creation of databases… (to) enable collation and correlation with UID and its partner databases" and UIDAI “shall own and operate the database". The executive notification dated January 28, 2009 that set up UIDAI mentions this. The entire exercise appears to have been stage managed.

I submit that Shri Nilekani has recommended Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) for the
"unique identification" of vehicles. If the real motive is not surveillance then how is that UIDAI Chairman wears several hats like an intelligence person to undertake unauthorized and illegitimate tracking.

I submit that on June 29, 2013, Shri Nilekani reportedly revealed that they were in preliminary discussions with embassies to use the UID number to “simplify visa application procedures”. Isn’t passport a sovereign document? Notably, Nilekani refers to Aadhaar as akin to internal
passport. For passport, there is Passport Act, under what Act is this ‘internal passport’ being promoted?

I submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court's order must be looked at in the light of what of
Government of India’s approach paper on privacy states. It says, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralised manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage.  However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer. Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.”

I submit that as I had pointed out in my earlier dated March 24, 2013 as to how Attorney General of India had submitted that UIDAI will function only till the passage of the UID Bill. The Bill was not passed. Now the UIDAI should seize to exist because it is legally invalid. How can a notification of Planning Commission be deemed legally valid when even the ordinance issued by the President of India become invalid if the Bill is not passed within six months.

I submit that it was reported on October 6, 2011 that Gujarat Chief Minister, Shri Narendra Modi wrote to the Prime Minister questioning the need for National Population Register (NPR) by Registrar General of India & Census Commissioner, Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Gujarat stopped collection of biometric data for creation of the NPR.

In his letter to the Prime Minister, Shri Modi raised objections over both the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which is creating Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number and Registrar General of India, which is creating the NPR, collecting biometric data.

In his letter to the Prime Minister, Shri Modi wrote, “there is no mention of capturing biometrics in the Citizenship Act or Citizenship Rules 2009”. He added, “In the absence of any provision in the Citizenship Act, 1955, or rules for capturing biometrics, it is difficult to appreciate how the capture of biometrics is a statutory requirement. Photography and biometrics is only mentioned in the Manual of Instructions for filling up the NPR household schedule and even in that there is no mention of capturing the Iris”.

After Gujarat stopped collection of biometric data, the then Union Minister of Home Affairs, Shri P Chidambaram sent a letter to Modi in August 2011 pointing out that creation of the NPR was a “statutory requirement” under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and “once initialized, has to be necessarily completed”. The Union Minister of Home Affairs had also requested the CM to instruct state government officers to cooperate in creation of the NPR. This was when the entire media, the citizens and the political class was hoodwinked into believing that there was a rift between Shri  Nilekani’s UIDAI under Planning Commission and Dr C Chandramouli’s NPR under Union Minsitry of Home Affairs when Shri Chidambaram headed it.

It appears that Shri Modi chose to side with UIDAI in an apparent rebuff to Shri Chidambaram. Shri Modi kicked off UID/Adhaar project in Gujarat on May 1, 2012 by giving his biometric information for his Aadhaar/UID number and enrolled under the UIDAI project. Strangely, Modi did not object to his biometric identification under UID as he did with regard to NPR. Modi did so despite the fact that Shri Yashwant Sinha headed Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has rejected the UID project and the UID Bill in its report to the Parliament on December 13, 2012. However, it may be noted that one sentence of its report appears to endorse biometric NPR. Is it a case of Shri Sinha was trying to side with Shri Chidambaram? It appears that Shri Modi has been taken for ride with regard to the UID/Aadhaar and Shri Sinha with regard to NPR as they failed to see through the strategy. Now Shri Chidambaram is wearing the hat of Union Minister of Finance. This is how both Shri Modi and Shri Sinha were outwitted by Shri Chidambaram.    

II submit that Shri Nilekani met the then Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar, Shri Sushil Kumar Modi at Bihar Bhawan in New Delhi in August 2011 to ensure a centralized IT infrastructure for GST across the states through GST Network, a National Information Utility, a private company with public purpose having profit making as the motive but not profit maximizing. This is meant to take away the sovereign function of tax collection from the State.

It appears that the staged rift that was created between Union Ministry of Home Affairs and Planning Commission’ UIDAI on UID and NPR was motivated and was meant to take legislatures, citizens, States and media for a ride.

I reiterate that the Terms of Reference No. 8 of Planning Commission’s notification dated January 28, 2009 that created Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in pursuance of the 4th meeting of the Empowered Group of Ministers, states, “Take necessary steps to ensure collation of NPR and UID (as per approved strategy)”.

I submit that rift that led to division of work between UIDAI and Home Ministry's Registrar General of India & Census Commissioner and the movement of Shri P Chidambaram from Home Ministry to Finance Ministry appears to be as per the approved strategy. The strategy document prepared by WIPRO Ltd is missing.

As per the communication from UIDAI dated July 2, 2010 which states that “The decision for appointment of Chairman was conveyed by the Cabinet Secretariat” The Planning Commission’s notification (which was to be published in the Gazette of India) dated July 2, 2009 reveals that “the competent authority has approved the appointment of Shri Nandan Nilekani, Co-Chairman, INFOSYS as Chairperson, Unique Identification Authority of India, in the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister. Shri Nilekani will hold appointment for an initial tenure of five years”. The notification shows that a copy was marked to Shri Nandan Nilekani, CEO, President & MD, Infosys Technologies Ltd., Corporate Headquarters besides the Secretary Generals of Secretariats of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. This was before the UID Bill (The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010) was introduced in the Parliament and sent back by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in its report to the Parliament in December 13, 2011.

It is noteworthy that National Population Register (NPR) for Multi-purpose Identity Card (MNIC), Unique Identification /Aadhaar Number, UID/Aadhaar-Enabled E-payment system, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), DNA Profiling, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), National Information Utility, Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations, Electronic Services Delivery Law, amendments in Information Technology Act, Land Titling Bill, unified E payment infrastructure etc are related and are in line with the policy of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and World Bank's eTransform Initiative. None of the above programmes and subordinate legislations have legislative mandate.

I submit that given a choice between leakage or theft of citizens database of sensitive personal information and leakage of public distribution system and delivery social welfare services what would be be chosen and which can be plugged more easily. Recently, database of Greece has been stolen as per Reuters and the database of Pakistan and Egypt has been handed over to US as per the diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks.

I submit that In UID/Aadhaar Enrolment Form, Column 9 reads: "I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of welfare services". In front of this column, there is a "Yes" and "No" option. Irrespective of what option residents of India exercise (which is being ticked automatically by the enroler in any case as of now), the fact is this information being collected for creating Centralized Identity Data Register (CIDR) and NPR (column 7) will be handed over to biometric technology companies like Satyam Computer Services/Sagem Morpho, L1 Identities Solutions and Accenture Services of all shades who have already been awarded contracts.

I wish to know as to why Aadhaar/UID, NPR is being linked with Census and Voters’ database.    

I submit that States and citizens have been caught unawares by the integration of 21 sets of databases underway and the creation of UID’s Centralized Identities Data Register (CIDR) disregarding the fact that Planning Commission’s CIDR and Home Ministry’s National Population Register (NPR) is going to be converged.

It is indeed unfortunate that the Central Government has chosen to listen to consultants who are more interested in making a quick sale of their biometric, identification and surveillance technology products. The ways in which compromised biometrics can be of inordinate danger to the person whose biometrics have been stolen due to mishandling or improper understanding of the ways in which digital systems can be misused and abused has been visualized in an article authored by a pioneer in biometric identity systems merits attention. The same has been published in The New York Times on November 10, 2012.

I submit that UID- Aadhaar based cash transfer scheme anti poor. The claim that Central Government’s UID -Aadhaar will result in the savings is suspect unless Prime Minister’s Office and Planning Commission study revealed the total budget UID-Aadhaar project. The Prime Minister’s Office must declare its total budget Aadhaar project before disbursing cash transfer through UIDAI platform for all major government schemes.

I submit that UID-Aadhaar based cash transfer is being started off when bank accounts still don't exist for everyone, especially those who the government claims to want to target; when the institution of banking correspondents has been tried and has admittedly failed; when the proof of concepts on biometrics has demonstrated that it is still an under-tested technology; when even the projected coverage of the aadhaar is half the population (600 million) by 2014. The government is impatient to shift to cash transfer as is being recommended by intergovernmental banking agencies such as the World Bank; and the evidence of probable failure is not to be heeded in this haste. The Bank’s paper dated October 2012 reveals that cash transfer and vote purchase is linked.

I submit that the "Strategic Vision on the UIDAI Project" envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI would have to the electoral database. The Committee also appreciated the need of a UIDAI Authority to be created by an executive order under the aegis of the Planning Commission to ensure a pan-departmental and neutral identity for the authority and at the same time enable a focused approach to attaining the goals set for the XI Plan. The Seventh Meeting of the Process Committee on 30 August 2007 decided to furnish to the Planning commission a detailed proposal based on the resource model for seeking its "in principle" approval.  At the same time, the Registrar General of India was engaged in the creation of the National Population Register and issuance of Multi-purpose National Identity Cards to citizens of India. Reference: http://uidai.gov.in/about-uidai.html

It is noteworthy that Election Commission’s website carries a power point presentation that concludes by stating ‘Makes us UID ready’. It has come to light that Union Home Ministry has sought a proposal from the Election Commission of India and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), will ensure that UID-Aadhaar does not duplicate the data that is collected and used by the Election Commission. Dr S Y Quraishi as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) revealed to a newspaper that, “With the UID project already completing the biometric process under its umbrella, by scanning fingerprints and retina scan, we have approached the Centre to merge the Election ID cards with UID.” He added, “We will have the unique identification numbers provided by the UID printed on the election IDs…With over 750 million people registered with the EC, we have the largest data base to help the UID project.” It may be noted that the Shri Nilekani had approached the Election Commission for accessing their data base and voters list for preparing the UID database.

It is quite disturbing that the Parliament and citizens have not been informed so far about the ongoing merger of UID, NPR and electoral database when it examined the UID Bill.  This constitutes commission of a series of illegalities and acts of unwarranted subordinate legislation.

It has come to light that head of UIDAI was given ID Limelight Award at the ID WORLD International Congress in Italy. This year the 10th edition of the ID WORLD International Congress is planned in Milan, Italy during November 2-4. The key sponsors of Congress include Morpho (Safran group), a French multinational corporation specializing in ID credentials solutions incorporating biometrics application in passports, visas, ID documents, health and social benefits, elections, etc. Its subsidiary, Sagem Morpho Security Pvt. Ltd has been awarded contract for the purchase of Biometric Authentication Devices on February 2, 2011 by the UIDAI.

I submit that on July 30, 2010, in a joint press release, it was announced that “the Mahindra Satyam and Morpho led consortium has been selected as one of the key partners to implement and deliver the Aadhaar program by UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India).” This means that at least two contracts have been awarded to the French conglomerate led consortium.  Is it a coincidence that Morpho (Safran group) sponsored the award to Chairman, UIDAI and the former got a contract from the latter?

Incidentally, Shri Nilekani was given the award at the ID WORLD International Congress in 2010 held in Milan from November 16 to 18, 2010. One of the two Platinum Sponsors was Morpho (Safran group), a French high-technology company with three core businesses: Aerospace, Defense and Security.  Coincidentally, this Global Summit on Automatic Identification in 2009 had awarded Shri Tariq Malik, the then Deputy Chairman of Islamabad based National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) too for implementing UID project in Pakistan. Shri Tariq Malik is currently the Chairman of NADRA. Wikileaks revealed in a video interview to Shri Imran Khan that the database of NADRA was given to US agencies.

I submit that Shri Nilekani was given the award "For being the force behind a transformational project ID project in India...and "to provide identification cards for each resident across the country and would be used primarily as the basis for efficient delivery of welfare services. It would also act as a tool for effective monitoring of various programs and schemes of the Government."  I submit that there is a conflict of interest and it appears to be an act done in lieu of the contract.

I submit that at a lecture on November 23, 2012 UIDAI Chairperson talked about a gigantic naming ceremony underway-mankind’s biggest biometric database ever and ominously stated that if you do not have the Aadhaar card you will not get the right to rights. UID is like a financial address for the people. The question is if Aadhaar card is only an identifier of residents of India how does it accord to itself an inherent right to approve or disapprove rights of citizens to have rights? He mentioned the October 2012 report of the Report of the Justice A P Shah headed Group of Experts on Privacy but ignored the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and Statement of Concern on UID that Justice Shah had co-signed. When UIDAI Chairperson acknowledged that privacy is larger than Aadhaar and says that legal framework will even out the design risks, he took the audience for ride because while the legal framework for both the UID and Privacy is absent the implementation of UID and NPR is unfolding illegally and illegitimately.

It has been noted that the name Aadhaar is linked to the NGO of Nilekani that worked in the matter of Bangalore Agenda Task Force from 1999 to 2004.

I submit that Government of India is putting the cart before the horse, how does Privacy Bill make sense when privacy of citizens is already violated through aadhaar/UID related tracking and profiling system being implemented.

I submit  that Parliament and citizens have not been informed so far about the ongoing merger of UID, NPR and electoral database when it examined the UID Bill.  This constitutes commission of a series of illegalities and acts of unwarranted subordinate legislation.

I submit that Planning Commission’s claim of Rs 1, 10, 000 crore of savings from unique identification (UID)-Aadhaar and the Parliamentary Committee’s Report on UID/Aadhaar Bill submitted to the Parliament which found the UID-Aadhaar scheme questionable on several counts including the fact that it is irrational to claim savings without disclosing the total budget of the UID and UID related projects. The budgetary allocation for UIDAI is acting like a sink for public money. All claims of benefits are suspect as long as total cost is presented to the Parliament and citizens.

In the face of such assault on Parliament’s prerogative, State’s autonomy, citizens’ rights and the emergence of a regime that is making legislatures subservient to database and data mining companies, the urgent intervention of the PSC, Parliament, States, political parties and citizens cannot be postponed anymore.

In view of the above, the biometric identification project should be abandoned as it concerns not only the present generation but future generations as well.


Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna,
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL),
Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731,
E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com

Cc

Shri Sharad Yadav, President, Janata Dal (United)

Smt Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition, Lok Sabha

Ms. Mamata Banerjee , Chairperson, President, All India Trinamool Congress 

Shri Naveen Patnaik, President, Biju Janata Dal

Shri Rajnath Singh, President, Bhartiya Janata Party

Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, President, Samajwadi Party

Ms Mayawati, President, Bahujan Samaj Party

Shri Suravaram Sudhakar Reddy, General Secretary, Communist Party of India

Shri Prakash Karat, General Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Shri Sharad Pawar, President, Nationalist Congress Party

Dr J Jayalalitha, President, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Shri Nara Chandrababu Naidu, President, Telugudesam Party

Cabinet Secretary, Government of India 

Secretary to the President of India

Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Cabinet Committee on Security, Government of India 

Chief Minister, Government of Bihar

Chief Minister, Government of Tripura

Chief Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh

Chief Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu

Chief Minister, Government of Punjab

Chief Minister, Government of Goa

Chief Minister, Government of West Bengal

Chief Minister, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Chief Minister, Government of Odisha

Chief Minister, Government of Jharkhand

Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India

Comptroller & Auditor General of India

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice

Chairman, Public Accounts Committee

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture

Hon’ble Members of Parliament

Lt Governor, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar

Chief Secretary, Government of Chattisgarh

Chief Secretary, Government of Goa

Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat

Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana

Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh

Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir

Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka

Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala

Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa

Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab

Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan

Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu

Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh

Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand

Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal

Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry

Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh

Chief Secretary, Government of Assam

Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur

Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya

Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram

Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland

Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim

Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura

Chief Secretary, Government of Andaman and Nicobar (UT)

Administrator, Government of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (UT)

Administrator, Government of Daman and Diu (UT)

Administrator, Government of Lakshadweep (UT)

Shri Kalva Kuntla Chandrasekhar Rao, President, Telangana Rashtra Samithi

Shri Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)-Liberation

Shri Provash Ghosh, General Secretary, Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist)

Ms Medha Patkar, Convener, National Alliance of Peoples Movements

Ms Aruna Roy, Member, National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information

Shri Chittaranjan Singh, General Secretary, Indian Social Action Forum 

Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Member, Aam Aadmi Party





Share this article :

+ comments + 1 comments

Post a Comment

 
Copyright © 2013. ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice - All Rights Reserved
Proudly powered by Blogger