Dear Arvind Kejriwalji,
This is with reference to an interview wherein you said that "there are certain objections, which need to be addressed" with regard to the Biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number scheme (The Tribune, 9th February, 2014), I submit that there is a logical compulsion for AAP to seek removal of aadhaar from the list of identity proofs having taken cognizance of “objections" against the aadhaar that have remained unaddressed and more gnawing concerns that have emerged since then. The political class in general has failed to stop indiscriminate biometric profiling of Indians. It is noteworthy that in a unanimous verdict, European Court of Human Rights has questioned indiscriminate profiling. AAP can lead the efforts to reverse the aadhaar related initiatives taking note of experience in China, UK, Australia, USA, Philippines, France and elsewhere. Kindly excuse me for a long letter but concerns about mankind's biggest biometric database created the need for this elaborate write up.
This is also to draw your attention towards the attached order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated March 24, 2014 and the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on biometric aadhaar amidst the demand of 17 eminent citizens led by late Justice V R Krishna Iyer demanding stoppage of the biometric Unique Identification (UID)/aadhaar number and related projects. It demonstrates that all the circulars and orders of Government of India and State Governments are illegal and illegitimate. This order which was passed after your February 2014 interview merits your immediate attention.
I submit that the information gathered using RTI has revealed that entire information of the citizens and residents is going to be admittedly stored online and on cloud under the Digital India Initiative of Government of India which, will be available to everybody inside and outside the country. The foreign companies like M/s L1 Solutions, a subsidiary of French Conglomerate Safran and Accenture, a US company who are de-duplicating the enrolment at the rate of Rs 2.75 per de-duplication are admittedly storing the biometric and demographic data for 7 years in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order passed on 24.3.2014. In electronic age storage of data even for one minute by any entity means storage for eternity. This storage of the biometric data of Indians is not for free. Indian residents and citizens are paying for it at rate of Rs 2.75 paisa per biometric de-duplication and will do so for umpteenth time!
I submit that after refusing to share contract documents for years, the UIDAI finally provided it under the RTI Act, with important pages missing. In the matter of Right to Information (RTI) application, on 14th October, 2014, Vijay Bhalla, Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission (CIC) wrote a letter on behalf of Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner, CIC to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) & Deputy Director, UIDAI. The letter states, “I am directed to convey that you should, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, provide to the Appellant the limited information i.e. financial quotation/ price by the third party firms in the subject tender as disclosure of it would not inflict any harm to the competitive position of third party firms at this stage when the contracts have already expired.” The RTI application was filed seeking a complete copy of the contract UIDAI signed with L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology, on 24th August, 2010 and a copy of the contract UIDAI signed with Accenture for Biometric Technology, on 1 September 2010. Responding to this letter, Subrata Das, the CPIO & Deputy Director, UIDAI wrote to the RTI Appellant on 22th October, 2014 in compliance with the CIC decision on the second Appeal hearing dated 30th September, 2014.
UIDAI’s letter reads, “The requisite letter in compliance with the CIC decision is as under:
(i) financial quotation/ price quoted by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd is Rs 2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services (ii) financial quotation/price quoted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd is Rs2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services
This reply implies that for each of the 100 crore Indian residents targeted for aadhaar enrolment, the taxpayer through the central government will have to incur the cost of Rs2.75 to the companies in question. This is significant because this is not a one-time cost but each time de-duplication of Aadhaar number is done, the cost will be incurred. Besides other gnawing concerns about an assault on human rights, national security, economy and sovereignty, this is yet another case of foreign companies withholding transfer of technology from developing countries.
I submit that UID/aadhaar violates human rights, right to privacy as well as other Constitutional rights, the application of UID was admittedly restricted to ‘civilian application’ and but now it has been extended to defence application.
I submit that the 6th Federal Council meeting of the National Federation of Civil Accounts Associations held on 18th and 19th September 2014 in Cochin passed a resolution urging the Government of India to delink the aadhar from the process of implementation of Biometric attendance system and before implementing the new scheme of biometric attendance system in the Central Government Offices.
I submit that the 1500 page manifesto titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence” brought out by Norwegian gunman and neo-Crusader, Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the heinous attacks on 22 July 2011 by bombing government buildings in Oslo killing his fellow citizens merits study. This manifesto refers to the word “identity” over 100 times, “unique” over 40 times and “identification” over 10 times. There is reference to “state-issued identity cards”, “converts’ identity cards”, “identification card”, “fingerprints”, “DNA” etc. The words in this manifesto give a sense of déjà vu when one examines the ongoing implementation of biometric aadhaar. I wonder what if an exercise similar to the one recommended in the infamous manifesto has an official sanction in the form of biometric aadhaar.
During a recent visit to France and Geneva to give testimony to a 52 Member Group of European MPs on the need for regulating transnational corporations and to attend the 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, I was informed by a German public policy researcher that the real scandal in Germany was not about the phone tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s by USA’s National Security Agency (NSA), an entity declared unconstitutional by a US District Court). She underlined that the real scam was that the biometric profile was all the German government and intelligence officials are available with the NSA.
I submit that the democratic mandate of the last parliamentary elections was against biometric aadhaar. In the absence of robust application of legal mind in the State, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has generated crores of biometric aadhaar numbers of Indian residents although the project does not have the required legal mandate after the proposed National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was trashed by the Parliamentary Committee in its report to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
I submit that unmindful of this Central Government's promptness to promote and support aadhaar is coincidentally supported by Shri Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries (RIL) who has expressed his support for biometric identification saying, “Aadhaar, an initiative of Unique Identification Authority of India, will soon support the world’s largest online platform to deliver government welfare services directly to the poor.” He has written this in a chapter titled ‘Making the next leap’ endorsing biometric profiling based identification in the book ‘Reimagining India’ edited by McKinsey & Company published by Simon & Schuster in November 2013. This appears to be an explicit signal to the political parties and media houses who receive direct and indirect corporate donations from companies as their clients in myriad disguises.
I submit that before their death 17 eminent citizens including Justice Iyer, Shri K G Kannabiran, noted human rights lawyer and Shri S R Sankaran, noted people’s IAS Officer issued a Statement of Concern against the biometric UID/aadhaar number. The other signatories included Prof Romila Thapar, historian, Justice A.P. Shah, Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi, Prof. Upendra Baxi, noted jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Trilochan Sastry, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Bezwada Wilson, leader of Safai Karamchari Andolan and Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIM, Ahmedabad, and ADR.
I submit that Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a people’s judge of the Supreme Court who passed away on December 4, 2014 in Kochi was opposed to biometric aadhaar and Planning Commission’s UIDAI. Although his views have been endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, Supreme Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and National Human Rights Commission besides European Court of Human Rights, governments of UK, France, Australia, China and Supreme Court of Philippines, the present Bhartiya Janta Party led Government like the previous Congress Party led Government is bulldozing the biometric data based 12 digit UID number branded as aadhaar.
I also wish to draw your attention towards what Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the US (1801-1809) said. He said," "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
I wish to draw your immediate attention towards the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in its report presented to the Lok Sabha and laid it in Rajya Sabha and a Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II dated December 18, 2014 regarding “AADHAAR (UIDAI) enrolment camp which was set up exclusively for the Members of Parliament who have not been enrolled as yet” published under the signature of Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. This seems to be an act of ignorance regarding the legislative process on aadhaar by the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The enrolment camp continued till December 23, 2014. A release of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) on behalf of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs stated that Lok Sabha Speaker Smt Sumitra Mahajan inaugurated Aadhaar registration of Members of Parliament in the Parliament House on December 11, 2014.
I submit that such exercise of power by the office bearers of Parliament in order to facilitate world’s largest biometric database appears unprecedented. It is likely to be deemed as an act of institutional subversion by the experts of parliamentary processes, conventions and future generations. The creation of this database is linked to World Bank’s eTransform Initiative with several undemocratic transnational companies and is illegally and illegitimately being linked to electoral database, Census and National Population Register.
I submit that this appeared to be aimed at appeasing US President Shri Barack Obama who was the chief guest on the republic day. The republic is apparently being put under surveillance through the universal aadhaar coverage, Shri Obama's interest in aadhaar is quite known. Not surprisingly, President Obama visited an Aadhaar enrolment station in Mumbai in 2010 during his last visit to India. His delegation included the CEO of L1 Identities Solution, then a US MNC (now a subsidiary of Safran Group, a French company with French Govt’s stake in it).
I submit that Wikileaks had revealed that US agencies are closely monitoring the implementation of the project.
This exercise has made a mockery of the legislative process and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance which noted that the Government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available.” In view of such glaring omissions, the Committee denounced the UID/aadhaar project as `unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives' and as akin to an ordinance when the Parliament is in session.
It must be recalled that The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 3rd December, 2010. The Speaker, Lok Sabha in consultation with the Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred the Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. The Standing Committee presented the Report to the Lok Sabha and laid it in Rajya Sabha on 13th December 2011.
The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has specifically raised questions about the legality of the collection of biometrics while creating a citizen/resident data base. The Report (in the section on Observations/Recommendations) reads: “The collection of biometric information and its linkage with personal information without amendment to the Citizenship Act 1955 as well as the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament.”
I submit that the complicity of the senior office bearers of both the Houses of the Parliament indicates that the office bearers are apparently complicit in illegitimate and censured acts of the executive. It is quite bizarre that they undertook this despite knowing the fate of The National Identification Authority of India Bill in both its 2010 and 2013 incarnations. It demonstrates quite an alarming silence of all the legislators in general but especially of those who were members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that trashed the aadhaar Bill and the project drawing on global experience from UK, Australia, China, France, USA, Philippines and others.
In the current context, Section 57 of the rejected aadhaar Bill which was trashed merit attention because it reveals executive’s intent to take legislative consent for biometric aadhaar and related initiatives for granted.
Anything done under the Planning Commission’s notification dated January 28, 2009 that set up the UIDAI “shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of this Act”. This created a logical compulsion for the legislature to rigorously examine the various activities undertaken by the UIDAI as it is likely to have serious consequences in connection with identification of persons, who the information is handed over to, with whom contracts have been entered, the non-existence of a data protection law, privacy law and its inherent possible structural link with the proposed Human DNA Profiling Identity Bill. This is significant because the aadhaar Bill did not define biometric data and DNA and voice samples are part of biometric data besides finger prints and iris scan.
It is quite apparent that after central government employees including defence employees, the MPs, it will be the turn of the MLAs, MLCs and other elected representatives of the Panchayati Raj institutions and municipalities to be targeted on priority basis for biometric aadhaar entrapment.
I submit that the Statement of Concern of eminent citizens further stated, “National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with 21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the 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’. Is there a lesson in it for us? In the late nineties, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India – UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties with the convergence of UID…etc.”
The Statement of Concern which was signed by Justice Iyer concluded, “We, therefore, ask that the project be halted, A feasibility study be done covering all aspects of this issue, experts be tasked with studying its constitutionality, the law on privacy be urgently worked on (this will affect matters way beyond the UID project), a cost : benefit analysis be done and a public, informed debate be conducted before any such major change be brought in.”
This is the statement of the same Justice Iyer on whose passing away President Shri Pranab Mukherjee said, “As an eminent jurist, he used law as an instrument of social engineering and social change making justice accessible to all, including the marginalized and the vulnerable. As a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he made immense contribution to the development of human rights jurisprudence. His sad demise leaves a void which is difficult to fill.”
I submit that greeting Justice Iyer on his 100th birthday, Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi said, “Legal luminary, philosopher and intellectual, Justice Krishna Iyer is an Institution in himself, who dedicated his life to the Nation. Justice Iyer’s life and works are an inspiration to all of us. My interactions with him have been very enriching. I learnt a lot from him,”
But when it comes to following Justice Iyer’s recommendations on biometric aadhaar, the government seems to ignore it and follow the advice of India’s richest man whose name features in the list of those who hoard black money in foreign banks.
I submit that Aadhaar numbers meant for residents of India was repeatedly mentioned in the Congress manifesto in 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The manifesto read, it “will ensure that all Indian residents have a unique Aadhaar number. It can be used as proof of identity and proof as residence.” Supreme Court has overruled Congress plan to link any service to aadhaar in its order of March 24, 2014.
It is noteworthy that Election Commission of India has announced that if one does not Voter Identity Cards, there are 14 alternative documents to proof one’s identity, aadhaar isn’t mentioned in its advertisements.
I submit that during the election campaign for the Lok Sabha elections Shri Narendra Modi and his party opposed aadhaar but on 1st May, 2012, he himself enrolled for aadhaar by giving his biometric fingerprints as per the website of Shri Modi and prior to that Gujarat Government signed a MoU to implement aadhaar. But he endorsed Court’s order against aadhaar during the Lok Sabha 2014 election campaign. After becoming the Prime Ministerial and after meeting Shri Nandan Nilekani on July 1st, 2014, he took somersault and started promoting biometric aadhaar.
I submit that the Memorandum of understanding (MoU) to implement aadhaar was signed with Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) when Communist Party of India (Marxist)—CPI(M) was in power in West Bengal. But although Trinamool Congress (TMC) got a resolution passed in the State Assembly against aadhaar being made mandatory, it has not annulled the MoU and has not sought the abandonment of the project. TMC and CPI (M) seem to have similar position on aadhaar they voted together for the first time for the passage of the resolution.
I submit that Kerala’s leader of the opposition Shri VS Achuthanandan from CPI (M) as opposition leader asked the government to drop the ‘Aadhaar' project on 26th August, 2011. But as Kerala Chief Minister Shri Achuthanandan, just like Modi had launched the aadhaar project.
I submit that in Tripura, where CPI (M) rules, it became the first state in the northeast where the aadhaar scheme was launched on 2 December 2010. Quite belatedly, after Tripura Government received the award from the Indian National Congress led government for successfully implementing aadhaar, on 25 September 2013, the CPI (M) issued a statement titled “Aaadhar Illegal” and later expressed grave concerns about its relationship with foreign intelligence companies.
I submit that JD (U) leader, as Bihar chief minister, Shri Nitish Kumar revealed his position by launching biometric e-Shakti initiative in Bihar but the same has been abandoned. But it signed MoU to implement aadhaar in the state that is unfolding in a business as usual manner.
I submit that Samajwadi Party ruled state is also implementing the MoU to implement aadhaar that signed during Bahujan Samaj Party’s regime. Similar is the case with Biju Janata Dal ruled Odisha state.
I submit that on 29th September 2013, as Tamil Nadu chief minister Ms J Jayalalithaa wrote a letter to the Prime Minister questioning mandatory provision related to aadhaar but stopped short of seeking its scrapping.
I submit that on 22nd October, 2013, BJP vice president Smriti Irani made a statement against aadhhaar. Leaders like BJP’s South Bangalore candidate, Shri Anant Kumar too have echoed sentiments against aadhaar during their election campaign. At present both are union ministers and are happily promoting aadhaar’s implementation.
I submit that quite like Congress, CPI (M), TMC, SP, BSP, BJD and JD (U) and BJP have failed to announce that since biometric aadhaar violates constitutional rights, they will cancel the MoUs that they signed for their implementation in view of PSC’s report, Supreme Court’s order and international experience.
I submit that in one of the earliest documents that refer UIDAI is a 14-page long document titled ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd for the Planning Commission envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s aadhhar would have with the electoral database. The use of electoral database mentioned in Wipro’s document remains on the agenda of the proponents of aadhaar.
It is quite possible to merge the UID numbers of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and UID/aadhaar number of Indian voters. Will such convergence save democracy or undermine it?
In India, the origin of aadhaar lies in Shri Rahul Gandhi’s failed attempt to train Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and National Students' Union of India (NSUI) wherein a web-based Pehchaan (identity) platform was set up "as a mechanism to identify and promote elected office-bearers at every level." His approach was bound to meet the fate of his experiments in the IYC and the NSUI. Aadhaar scheme attempted to undermine all the existing institutions. It is strange as to why non-Congress political parties maintain silence about the emergency architecture based on a database that is stored on cloud over which India has no jurisdiction akin to what has been decided for Congress through Google's cloud computing, which is in agreement with IBM since 2007. IBM has not denied its involvement in the holocaust in Germany where it was involved in the census operations.
It seems understandable for the Congressmen in provinces to be obedient persons. But it is inexplicable as to why when the Pehchaan (identity) platform of the Congress which was extended the whole country even non-Congress parties agreed to it.
I submit that when you took cognizance of “objections” against the 12 digit Unique Identification (UID) Number branded as aadhaar, it emerged as a ray of hope that on your examination you will realize how aadhaar is not an identification card but a biometric identifier number that verifies citizens as subjects.
I submit that state governments run by non-BJP and non-Congress parties must apply their legal minds to abandon biometric data collection the way it has been done in UK, US, France, China and Australia before being compelled by the Court to do so. They need to ask: do political patrons of the UID have their own aadhaar number. Now these parties have no excuse to postpone call for boycott and civil disobedience movement against biometric identification in any form.
I submit that during the previous regime of AAP led Government; I visited Secretariat and noticed that biometric aadhaar was being considered as one of the identity proofs at Delhi Secretariat. It is possible that residues of Congress regime created this situation. It appeared that AAP did not realize that it is one of the pernicious residual legacies of Congress Government that merit immediate attention and action. I hope in that during your current tenure you will set it right after rigorous examination of the issues involved.
In his book The Economics of Innocent Fraud, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, "Out of the pecuniary and political pressures and fashions of the time, economics and larger economic and political system cultivate their own version of truth. This last has no necessary relation to reality...what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred...It is what serves, or is not adverse to, influential economic, political and social interest." Galbraith also wrote, "One must accept a continuing divergence between approved and conditioned belief and the reality. In the end, it is the reality that counts."
I wish to submit that most political parties greatly prefer "what is convenient to believe" preferred" in the face of marketing blitzkrieg by vendors of biometric identification technologies. I hope AAP will undo the damages done by Congress and BJP regime by taking inconvenient decisions in the interest of citizen’s rights of the present and future generations.
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) is involved in the research and advocacy against surveillance technologies since 2010. It has appeared before the relevant Parliamentary Committee that questioned the biometric identification of Indians without any legal mandate.
In the face of such assault on citizens’ rights and the emergence of a regime that is making legislatures subservient to database and data mining companies, the urgent intervention of the progressive political parties, legislators and informed citizens must not be postponed anymore.
In view of the above, CFCL demands that even at this late stage aadhaar and related schemes be halted and await Hon’ble Supreme Court’s final verdict in this regard. AAP should seek a white paper on the legality of biometric data collection and work undertaken under the project.
In view of the above, I seek your urgent intervention even as the biometric profile of every current and future Indian political leader and official is being stored by foreign governments and companies, yet another act of belittling state legislatures and parliament has been performed with impunity.
I will be happy to share more details and documents in this regard and meet you with a delegation in this regard at the earliest as per your convenience.
Warm Regards
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
This is with reference to an interview wherein you said that "there are certain objections, which need to be addressed" with regard to the Biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number scheme (The Tribune, 9th February, 2014), I submit that there is a logical compulsion for AAP to seek removal of aadhaar from the list of identity proofs having taken cognizance of “objections" against the aadhaar that have remained unaddressed and more gnawing concerns that have emerged since then. The political class in general has failed to stop indiscriminate biometric profiling of Indians. It is noteworthy that in a unanimous verdict, European Court of Human Rights has questioned indiscriminate profiling. AAP can lead the efforts to reverse the aadhaar related initiatives taking note of experience in China, UK, Australia, USA, Philippines, France and elsewhere. Kindly excuse me for a long letter but concerns about mankind's biggest biometric database created the need for this elaborate write up.
This is also to draw your attention towards the attached order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated March 24, 2014 and the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on biometric aadhaar amidst the demand of 17 eminent citizens led by late Justice V R Krishna Iyer demanding stoppage of the biometric Unique Identification (UID)/aadhaar number and related projects. It demonstrates that all the circulars and orders of Government of India and State Governments are illegal and illegitimate. This order which was passed after your February 2014 interview merits your immediate attention.
I submit that the information gathered using RTI has revealed that entire information of the citizens and residents is going to be admittedly stored online and on cloud under the Digital India Initiative of Government of India which, will be available to everybody inside and outside the country. The foreign companies like M/s L1 Solutions, a subsidiary of French Conglomerate Safran and Accenture, a US company who are de-duplicating the enrolment at the rate of Rs 2.75 per de-duplication are admittedly storing the biometric and demographic data for 7 years in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order passed on 24.3.2014. In electronic age storage of data even for one minute by any entity means storage for eternity. This storage of the biometric data of Indians is not for free. Indian residents and citizens are paying for it at rate of Rs 2.75 paisa per biometric de-duplication and will do so for umpteenth time!
I submit that after refusing to share contract documents for years, the UIDAI finally provided it under the RTI Act, with important pages missing. In the matter of Right to Information (RTI) application, on 14th October, 2014, Vijay Bhalla, Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission (CIC) wrote a letter on behalf of Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner, CIC to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) & Deputy Director, UIDAI. The letter states, “I am directed to convey that you should, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, provide to the Appellant the limited information i.e. financial quotation/ price by the third party firms in the subject tender as disclosure of it would not inflict any harm to the competitive position of third party firms at this stage when the contracts have already expired.” The RTI application was filed seeking a complete copy of the contract UIDAI signed with L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology, on 24th August, 2010 and a copy of the contract UIDAI signed with Accenture for Biometric Technology, on 1 September 2010. Responding to this letter, Subrata Das, the CPIO & Deputy Director, UIDAI wrote to the RTI Appellant on 22th October, 2014 in compliance with the CIC decision on the second Appeal hearing dated 30th September, 2014.
UIDAI’s letter reads, “The requisite letter in compliance with the CIC decision is as under:
(i) financial quotation/ price quoted by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd is Rs 2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services (ii) financial quotation/price quoted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd is Rs2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services
This reply implies that for each of the 100 crore Indian residents targeted for aadhaar enrolment, the taxpayer through the central government will have to incur the cost of Rs2.75 to the companies in question. This is significant because this is not a one-time cost but each time de-duplication of Aadhaar number is done, the cost will be incurred. Besides other gnawing concerns about an assault on human rights, national security, economy and sovereignty, this is yet another case of foreign companies withholding transfer of technology from developing countries.
I submit that UID/aadhaar violates human rights, right to privacy as well as other Constitutional rights, the application of UID was admittedly restricted to ‘civilian application’ and but now it has been extended to defence application.
I submit that the 6th Federal Council meeting of the National Federation of Civil Accounts Associations held on 18th and 19th September 2014 in Cochin passed a resolution urging the Government of India to delink the aadhar from the process of implementation of Biometric attendance system and before implementing the new scheme of biometric attendance system in the Central Government Offices.
I submit that the 1500 page manifesto titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence” brought out by Norwegian gunman and neo-Crusader, Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the heinous attacks on 22 July 2011 by bombing government buildings in Oslo killing his fellow citizens merits study. This manifesto refers to the word “identity” over 100 times, “unique” over 40 times and “identification” over 10 times. There is reference to “state-issued identity cards”, “converts’ identity cards”, “identification card”, “fingerprints”, “DNA” etc. The words in this manifesto give a sense of déjà vu when one examines the ongoing implementation of biometric aadhaar. I wonder what if an exercise similar to the one recommended in the infamous manifesto has an official sanction in the form of biometric aadhaar.
During a recent visit to France and Geneva to give testimony to a 52 Member Group of European MPs on the need for regulating transnational corporations and to attend the 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, I was informed by a German public policy researcher that the real scandal in Germany was not about the phone tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s by USA’s National Security Agency (NSA), an entity declared unconstitutional by a US District Court). She underlined that the real scam was that the biometric profile was all the German government and intelligence officials are available with the NSA.
I submit that the democratic mandate of the last parliamentary elections was against biometric aadhaar. In the absence of robust application of legal mind in the State, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has generated crores of biometric aadhaar numbers of Indian residents although the project does not have the required legal mandate after the proposed National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was trashed by the Parliamentary Committee in its report to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
I submit that unmindful of this Central Government's promptness to promote and support aadhaar is coincidentally supported by Shri Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries (RIL) who has expressed his support for biometric identification saying, “Aadhaar, an initiative of Unique Identification Authority of India, will soon support the world’s largest online platform to deliver government welfare services directly to the poor.” He has written this in a chapter titled ‘Making the next leap’ endorsing biometric profiling based identification in the book ‘Reimagining India’ edited by McKinsey & Company published by Simon & Schuster in November 2013. This appears to be an explicit signal to the political parties and media houses who receive direct and indirect corporate donations from companies as their clients in myriad disguises.
I submit that before their death 17 eminent citizens including Justice Iyer, Shri K G Kannabiran, noted human rights lawyer and Shri S R Sankaran, noted people’s IAS Officer issued a Statement of Concern against the biometric UID/aadhaar number. The other signatories included Prof Romila Thapar, historian, Justice A.P. Shah, Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi, Prof. Upendra Baxi, noted jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Trilochan Sastry, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Bezwada Wilson, leader of Safai Karamchari Andolan and Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIM, Ahmedabad, and ADR.
I submit that Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a people’s judge of the Supreme Court who passed away on December 4, 2014 in Kochi was opposed to biometric aadhaar and Planning Commission’s UIDAI. Although his views have been endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, Supreme Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and National Human Rights Commission besides European Court of Human Rights, governments of UK, France, Australia, China and Supreme Court of Philippines, the present Bhartiya Janta Party led Government like the previous Congress Party led Government is bulldozing the biometric data based 12 digit UID number branded as aadhaar.
I also wish to draw your attention towards what Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the US (1801-1809) said. He said," "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
I wish to draw your immediate attention towards the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in its report presented to the Lok Sabha and laid it in Rajya Sabha and a Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II dated December 18, 2014 regarding “AADHAAR (UIDAI) enrolment camp which was set up exclusively for the Members of Parliament who have not been enrolled as yet” published under the signature of Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. This seems to be an act of ignorance regarding the legislative process on aadhaar by the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The enrolment camp continued till December 23, 2014. A release of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) on behalf of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs stated that Lok Sabha Speaker Smt Sumitra Mahajan inaugurated Aadhaar registration of Members of Parliament in the Parliament House on December 11, 2014.
I submit that such exercise of power by the office bearers of Parliament in order to facilitate world’s largest biometric database appears unprecedented. It is likely to be deemed as an act of institutional subversion by the experts of parliamentary processes, conventions and future generations. The creation of this database is linked to World Bank’s eTransform Initiative with several undemocratic transnational companies and is illegally and illegitimately being linked to electoral database, Census and National Population Register.
I submit that this appeared to be aimed at appeasing US President Shri Barack Obama who was the chief guest on the republic day. The republic is apparently being put under surveillance through the universal aadhaar coverage, Shri Obama's interest in aadhaar is quite known. Not surprisingly, President Obama visited an Aadhaar enrolment station in Mumbai in 2010 during his last visit to India. His delegation included the CEO of L1 Identities Solution, then a US MNC (now a subsidiary of Safran Group, a French company with French Govt’s stake in it).
I submit that Wikileaks had revealed that US agencies are closely monitoring the implementation of the project.
This exercise has made a mockery of the legislative process and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance which noted that the Government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available.” In view of such glaring omissions, the Committee denounced the UID/aadhaar project as `unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives' and as akin to an ordinance when the Parliament is in session.
It must be recalled that The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 3rd December, 2010. The Speaker, Lok Sabha in consultation with the Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred the Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. The Standing Committee presented the Report to the Lok Sabha and laid it in Rajya Sabha on 13th December 2011.
The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has specifically raised questions about the legality of the collection of biometrics while creating a citizen/resident data base. The Report (in the section on Observations/Recommendations) reads: “The collection of biometric information and its linkage with personal information without amendment to the Citizenship Act 1955 as well as the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament.”
I submit that the complicity of the senior office bearers of both the Houses of the Parliament indicates that the office bearers are apparently complicit in illegitimate and censured acts of the executive. It is quite bizarre that they undertook this despite knowing the fate of The National Identification Authority of India Bill in both its 2010 and 2013 incarnations. It demonstrates quite an alarming silence of all the legislators in general but especially of those who were members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that trashed the aadhaar Bill and the project drawing on global experience from UK, Australia, China, France, USA, Philippines and others.
In the current context, Section 57 of the rejected aadhaar Bill which was trashed merit attention because it reveals executive’s intent to take legislative consent for biometric aadhaar and related initiatives for granted.
Anything done under the Planning Commission’s notification dated January 28, 2009 that set up the UIDAI “shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of this Act”. This created a logical compulsion for the legislature to rigorously examine the various activities undertaken by the UIDAI as it is likely to have serious consequences in connection with identification of persons, who the information is handed over to, with whom contracts have been entered, the non-existence of a data protection law, privacy law and its inherent possible structural link with the proposed Human DNA Profiling Identity Bill. This is significant because the aadhaar Bill did not define biometric data and DNA and voice samples are part of biometric data besides finger prints and iris scan.
It is quite apparent that after central government employees including defence employees, the MPs, it will be the turn of the MLAs, MLCs and other elected representatives of the Panchayati Raj institutions and municipalities to be targeted on priority basis for biometric aadhaar entrapment.
I submit that the Statement of Concern of eminent citizens further stated, “National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with 21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the 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’. Is there a lesson in it for us? In the late nineties, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India – UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties with the convergence of UID…etc.”
The Statement of Concern which was signed by Justice Iyer concluded, “We, therefore, ask that the project be halted, A feasibility study be done covering all aspects of this issue, experts be tasked with studying its constitutionality, the law on privacy be urgently worked on (this will affect matters way beyond the UID project), a cost : benefit analysis be done and a public, informed debate be conducted before any such major change be brought in.”
This is the statement of the same Justice Iyer on whose passing away President Shri Pranab Mukherjee said, “As an eminent jurist, he used law as an instrument of social engineering and social change making justice accessible to all, including the marginalized and the vulnerable. As a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he made immense contribution to the development of human rights jurisprudence. His sad demise leaves a void which is difficult to fill.”
I submit that greeting Justice Iyer on his 100th birthday, Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi said, “Legal luminary, philosopher and intellectual, Justice Krishna Iyer is an Institution in himself, who dedicated his life to the Nation. Justice Iyer’s life and works are an inspiration to all of us. My interactions with him have been very enriching. I learnt a lot from him,”
But when it comes to following Justice Iyer’s recommendations on biometric aadhaar, the government seems to ignore it and follow the advice of India’s richest man whose name features in the list of those who hoard black money in foreign banks.
I submit that Aadhaar numbers meant for residents of India was repeatedly mentioned in the Congress manifesto in 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The manifesto read, it “will ensure that all Indian residents have a unique Aadhaar number. It can be used as proof of identity and proof as residence.” Supreme Court has overruled Congress plan to link any service to aadhaar in its order of March 24, 2014.
It is noteworthy that Election Commission of India has announced that if one does not Voter Identity Cards, there are 14 alternative documents to proof one’s identity, aadhaar isn’t mentioned in its advertisements.
I submit that during the election campaign for the Lok Sabha elections Shri Narendra Modi and his party opposed aadhaar but on 1st May, 2012, he himself enrolled for aadhaar by giving his biometric fingerprints as per the website of Shri Modi and prior to that Gujarat Government signed a MoU to implement aadhaar. But he endorsed Court’s order against aadhaar during the Lok Sabha 2014 election campaign. After becoming the Prime Ministerial and after meeting Shri Nandan Nilekani on July 1st, 2014, he took somersault and started promoting biometric aadhaar.
I submit that the Memorandum of understanding (MoU) to implement aadhaar was signed with Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) when Communist Party of India (Marxist)—CPI(M) was in power in West Bengal. But although Trinamool Congress (TMC) got a resolution passed in the State Assembly against aadhaar being made mandatory, it has not annulled the MoU and has not sought the abandonment of the project. TMC and CPI (M) seem to have similar position on aadhaar they voted together for the first time for the passage of the resolution.
I submit that Kerala’s leader of the opposition Shri VS Achuthanandan from CPI (M) as opposition leader asked the government to drop the ‘Aadhaar' project on 26th August, 2011. But as Kerala Chief Minister Shri Achuthanandan, just like Modi had launched the aadhaar project.
I submit that in Tripura, where CPI (M) rules, it became the first state in the northeast where the aadhaar scheme was launched on 2 December 2010. Quite belatedly, after Tripura Government received the award from the Indian National Congress led government for successfully implementing aadhaar, on 25 September 2013, the CPI (M) issued a statement titled “Aaadhar Illegal” and later expressed grave concerns about its relationship with foreign intelligence companies.
I submit that JD (U) leader, as Bihar chief minister, Shri Nitish Kumar revealed his position by launching biometric e-Shakti initiative in Bihar but the same has been abandoned. But it signed MoU to implement aadhaar in the state that is unfolding in a business as usual manner.
I submit that Samajwadi Party ruled state is also implementing the MoU to implement aadhaar that signed during Bahujan Samaj Party’s regime. Similar is the case with Biju Janata Dal ruled Odisha state.
I submit that on 29th September 2013, as Tamil Nadu chief minister Ms J Jayalalithaa wrote a letter to the Prime Minister questioning mandatory provision related to aadhaar but stopped short of seeking its scrapping.
I submit that on 22nd October, 2013, BJP vice president Smriti Irani made a statement against aadhhaar. Leaders like BJP’s South Bangalore candidate, Shri Anant Kumar too have echoed sentiments against aadhaar during their election campaign. At present both are union ministers and are happily promoting aadhaar’s implementation.
I submit that quite like Congress, CPI (M), TMC, SP, BSP, BJD and JD (U) and BJP have failed to announce that since biometric aadhaar violates constitutional rights, they will cancel the MoUs that they signed for their implementation in view of PSC’s report, Supreme Court’s order and international experience.
I submit that in one of the earliest documents that refer UIDAI is a 14-page long document titled ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd for the Planning Commission envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s aadhhar would have with the electoral database. The use of electoral database mentioned in Wipro’s document remains on the agenda of the proponents of aadhaar.
It is quite possible to merge the UID numbers of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and UID/aadhaar number of Indian voters. Will such convergence save democracy or undermine it?
In India, the origin of aadhaar lies in Shri Rahul Gandhi’s failed attempt to train Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and National Students' Union of India (NSUI) wherein a web-based Pehchaan (identity) platform was set up "as a mechanism to identify and promote elected office-bearers at every level." His approach was bound to meet the fate of his experiments in the IYC and the NSUI. Aadhaar scheme attempted to undermine all the existing institutions. It is strange as to why non-Congress political parties maintain silence about the emergency architecture based on a database that is stored on cloud over which India has no jurisdiction akin to what has been decided for Congress through Google's cloud computing, which is in agreement with IBM since 2007. IBM has not denied its involvement in the holocaust in Germany where it was involved in the census operations.
It seems understandable for the Congressmen in provinces to be obedient persons. But it is inexplicable as to why when the Pehchaan (identity) platform of the Congress which was extended the whole country even non-Congress parties agreed to it.
I submit that when you took cognizance of “objections” against the 12 digit Unique Identification (UID) Number branded as aadhaar, it emerged as a ray of hope that on your examination you will realize how aadhaar is not an identification card but a biometric identifier number that verifies citizens as subjects.
I submit that state governments run by non-BJP and non-Congress parties must apply their legal minds to abandon biometric data collection the way it has been done in UK, US, France, China and Australia before being compelled by the Court to do so. They need to ask: do political patrons of the UID have their own aadhaar number. Now these parties have no excuse to postpone call for boycott and civil disobedience movement against biometric identification in any form.
I submit that during the previous regime of AAP led Government; I visited Secretariat and noticed that biometric aadhaar was being considered as one of the identity proofs at Delhi Secretariat. It is possible that residues of Congress regime created this situation. It appeared that AAP did not realize that it is one of the pernicious residual legacies of Congress Government that merit immediate attention and action. I hope in that during your current tenure you will set it right after rigorous examination of the issues involved.
In his book The Economics of Innocent Fraud, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, "Out of the pecuniary and political pressures and fashions of the time, economics and larger economic and political system cultivate their own version of truth. This last has no necessary relation to reality...what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred...It is what serves, or is not adverse to, influential economic, political and social interest." Galbraith also wrote, "One must accept a continuing divergence between approved and conditioned belief and the reality. In the end, it is the reality that counts."
I wish to submit that most political parties greatly prefer "what is convenient to believe" preferred" in the face of marketing blitzkrieg by vendors of biometric identification technologies. I hope AAP will undo the damages done by Congress and BJP regime by taking inconvenient decisions in the interest of citizen’s rights of the present and future generations.
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) is involved in the research and advocacy against surveillance technologies since 2010. It has appeared before the relevant Parliamentary Committee that questioned the biometric identification of Indians without any legal mandate.
In the face of such assault on citizens’ rights and the emergence of a regime that is making legislatures subservient to database and data mining companies, the urgent intervention of the progressive political parties, legislators and informed citizens must not be postponed anymore.
In view of the above, CFCL demands that even at this late stage aadhaar and related schemes be halted and await Hon’ble Supreme Court’s final verdict in this regard. AAP should seek a white paper on the legality of biometric data collection and work undertaken under the project.
In view of the above, I seek your urgent intervention even as the biometric profile of every current and future Indian political leader and official is being stored by foreign governments and companies, yet another act of belittling state legislatures and parliament has been performed with impunity.
I will be happy to share more details and documents in this regard and meet you with a delegation in this regard at the earliest as per your convenience.
Warm Regards
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment