This question made active Twitter society members to demand asked TRAI
Chairman to walk the talk and reveal his Aadhaar number on 28 July. They said
if he has so much trust in the 13 feet wall secured aadhaar system. Following
this exchange of words over Twitter, Sharma made his 12 digit biometric unique
identification (UID) number branded as Aadhaar public on this micro blogging
site.
In the early evening of 28 July, Sharma announced that “My Aadhaar number is ***********. Now I give this challenge to you: Show me one concrete example where you can do any harm to me!”
By doing so, Sharma committed
an illegal and punishable act. Publishing of Aadhaar number is prohibited
by Aadhaar Act, 2016. As per Section 29 (4) of the Act, “No Aadhaar number or
core biometric information collected or created under this Act in respect of an
Aadhaar number holder shall be published, displayed or posted publicly, except
for the purposes as may be specified by regulations.” So far there is no
regulation which condones this illegal act of the TRAI Chairman.
Within
few hours some cyber security researchers, the ethical hackers accessed his
personal details using the Aadhaar number and shared some excerpts on twitter.
In
such a backdrop, Sharma wrote an article in Indian Express on 31st July explaining why
he gave out his number wherein he has argued that his “purpose in engaging in
debate is to prove by my own example that Aadhaar number disclosure cannot
cause any harm.” He hoped that his challenge would put an end to the
scaremongering so that the people of India can benefit from the technology.
But
the facts are contrary to his claims about right to privacy, disclosure of
personal sensitive information, digital vulnerabilities and benefits.
In its affidavit before the 9-Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court,
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) submitted that right to privacy is
not a fundamental right. The Court debunked its claim in it verdict of 24
August 2017 and ruled that “The right to privacy is protected as an
intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and
as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.” It conclusively established that right to privacy is a fundamental right.
The Court observed, “The dignity of the individual
encompasses the right of the individual to develop to the full extent of his
potential. And this development can only be if an individual has autonomy over
fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of personal
information which may be infringed through an unauthorized use of such
information.” On the question of vulnerability, the court took note of “increased
the vulnerability of individuals to having their actions, words, images, and
personalities communicated without their consent beyond the protected circle of
family and chosen friends.” It is crystal clear that all the claims of
TRAI have been demolished by the Court. TRAI and Sharma have failed to revise
their position in the light of this verdict.
On 1 May 2012, Sharma “took the
biometric fingerprints of Mr Modi for his identity card and registered him
under the project” as per the website of Narendra Modi. (Source: http://www.narendramodi.in/cm-kicks-off-uid-project-in-gujarat/). It is apparent that, he
misled the then Gujarat Chief Minister because it was not mandatory as per the
declaration on every Aadhaar enrolment form and there was no legal framework in
place.
(Photo: R S Sharma behind Gujarat Chief Minister in May 2012 to kick off Unique Identification Number (UID) – Aadhaar project)
Notably, Mr Modi had protested against biometric data collection in aletter to the then Prime Minister. This was after the then Home Minister P Chidambaram had sent a letter to Mr Modi pointing out that creation of biometric National Population Register (which has now been converged with UID/Aadhaar) was a "statutory requirement" under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and "once initialized, has to be necessarily completed". Gujarat had stopped collection of biometric data. It demonstrates that Mr Modi himself had gnawing doubts about biometric data based identification. But Sharma seems to have succeeded in persuading him to part with is biometric data for UID/Aadhaar.
As chief secretary of Jharkhand, he violated
Supreme Court’s orders to make aadhaar mandatory. This has contributed to
ongoing starvation deaths in Jharkhand. In all his official capacities he
continued to illegitimately and illegally use foreign Gmail accounts of. He did
so even during his tenure at UIDAI. He did not learn any lessons from Hilary
Clinton’s private email controversy which contributed to her defeat. The use
private email server for official communications during her tenure as US
Secretary of State rather than official US State Department email accounts
maintained on secure federal servers became a huge scam. These official
communications included over 100 emails which contained classified information
at the time they were sent, as well as 2,093 emails which were not marked
classified but were retroactively be ranked as "confidential" by the
State Department. Her communications did not have classification markings. In
July 2016, FBI announced that its investigation had concluded that Clinton was
"extremely careless" in handling her email system. It was a factor in
her loss in the 2016 presidential election. Sharma is guilty of a similar
offence. His current stance with regard to his own Aadhaar number creates a
compelling reason for probe into his gmail and other private email accounts he
has been using.
Unique Identification Authority of India
(UIDAI)’s Committee on Biometrics revealed that in its sample of 25,000 people,
2-5% did not have biometric records. It is estimated that approximately
5% of any population has unreadable fingerprints, either due to scars or aging
or illegible prints.
(Photo: R S Sharma with N Nilekani)
In the Indian environment, experience has shown that the
failure to enroll is as high as 15% due to the prevalence of a huge
population dependent on manual labour, revealed Sharma as the director general
and mission director, UIDAI in an interview to Frontline. When
as many as 15% fail to enroll, how does “Aadhaar in the beneficiary database
ensures detection of a large number of duplicates”? Failure in this regard has
contributed to starvation deaths in most states. The accountability for these
deaths lies with officials like Sharma.
Sharma
has been violating laws with impunity for quite a while. Therefore, he did not
desist from violating even the punitive provisions of the Aadhaar Act. If law does
take not its own course to charge him of this offence, it will once again
demonstrate that Aadhaar Act is a black law because it is apparent that its implementation
is only aimed at causing starvation deaths and civil deaths by coercion.
Dr
Gopal Krishna
The
author had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that
examined the Aadhaar Bill and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Food,
Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution that examined the Consumer Protection
Bill. He is editor of www.toxicswatch.org and
is the convener of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties which has been working on
UID/Aadhaar issue since 2010.
Post a Comment