Appeal
made at Bangladesh Bharat Pakistan People's Forum (BBPPF) Meet to boycott biometric identification
Imran Khan
informed of theft of Pakistan’s biometric UID database by Wikileaks founder
Information on Aadhaar enrolment status of Cabinet
Ministers, MPs, Nilekani, Ahluwalia denied
How many Bihar ministers, MLAs and MLCs have enrolled for Aadhaar?
Privacy under
grave threat, UIDAI preparing the platform for NCTC and NATGRID
Aadhaar is not mandatory, Punjab and Haryana High Court bench
Patna/New Delhi June 11, 2013: While Bihar Chief Minister’s call for legislation for
National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) at the conference of chief
ministers on internal security in New Delhi has merit but it is strange
that Bihar Government has signed a legally
questionable Memorandum of Understanding with Unique Identification Authority
of India (UIDAI), Planning Commission to implement biometric data based Unique
Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number scheme without any legal and constitutional
mandate. It is an admitted fact that UID/Aadhaar is linked to NCTC and National
Intelligence Grid (NATGRID.) Both are two ends of the same rope.
In
such a situation, how can the UID/Aadhaar be implemented in Bihar and other
States when Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has rejected the National
Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 that was meant to legitimize the UIDAI.
Bihar
Chief Minister has rightly argued that "If the Centre still considers it
expedient to form an organisation like NCTC, then it should be done through
legislation in Parliament which will ensure a wider debate over the
subject." CFCL demands to know as to why the same logic should not apply
in the case of the implementation of UID/Aadhaar Identifier Number scheme which
is being undertaken without legislation.
In
a significant development, Aadhaar enrolment status of Cabinet Ministers, MPs,
Nilekani under RTI has been denied. The reply is attached. Citizens Forum for
Civil Liberties (CFCL) demands to know as to how many Bihar ministers, MLAs and
MLCs have enrolled for illegitimate and illegal Aadhaar. If they have not
enrolled why are they not informing the citizens of the State about the reasons
of their refusal to enrol for biometric identification.
CFCL
which had given testimony to the Parliamentary Committee demands that Bihar
Government should put a stay on the execution of the UID/Aadhaar related
projects in the state following the grave concerns expressed by eminent
citizens, former judges and academicians besides the Parliamentary Committee.
Speaking
at a meeting of Bangladesh Bharat Pakistan People's Forum
(BBPPF) on June 9, 2013, Gopal Krishna of CFCL which has been campaigning against emergence of a
surveillance state, appealed for boycott of biometric identification through UID/Aadhaar. Mahtma Gandhi had opposed a
similar project in South Africa. CFCL had given testimony to the
Parliamentary Committee that rejected the UID Bill.
It is germane to note that Wikileaks founder in an
interview with Imran Khan that Pakistan’s version of biometric exercise for
identity card was completed and their database has been handed over to US
Government.
In an interview Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks
informed Imran Khan about the grave act of omission and commission saying, “we
discovered a cable in 2009 from the Islamabad Embassy. Prime Minister Gilani
and Interior Minister Malik went into the embassy and offered to share NADRA –
and NADRA is the national data and registration agency database. The system is
currently connected through passport data but the government of Pakistan is
adding voice and facial recognition capability and has installed a pilot
biometric system as the Chennai border crossing, where 30,000 to 35,000 people
cross each day. This NADRA system, that is the voting record system for all
voters in Pakistan, and a front company was set up in the United Kingdom –
International Identity Services, which was hired as the consultants for NADRA
to squirrel out the NADRA data for all of Pakistan. What do you think about
that? Is that a…? It seems to me that that is a theft of some national treasure
of Pakistan, the entire Pakistani database registry of its people.” The
interview is available at http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/episode-10.html
Speaking
at BBPPF Meet,
Dr Sunilam, a senior socialist leader and former legislator from Madhya Pradesh
endorsed the call for boycott of and denounced the aadhaar like schemes which
facilitates tracking and profiling in the way it was done in Germany by the
Nazi party that led to holocaust.
Disregarding
such gnawing concerns, central government’s disdain for the law has been
characterized by Yashwant Sinha headed Parliamentary Standing Committee as
`unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives'. Citizens have been protesting
against the biometric data based UID and National Population Register (NPR)
project across the country from the very outset. By now it is clear that it is
an unnecessary project which must be stopped.
Earlier,
on June 2, 2013, Aruna Roy, former member, National Advisory Council (NAC) questioned
the legality of UID/Aadhaar number during her lecture at A N Sinha
Institute of Social Studies, Patna and asserted that it is one of the biggest
mistakes this country is making i.e. linking Aadhaar to welfare delivery.
The
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance considering the National
Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2010 presented its report to
the Parliament on December 13, 2011. The report rejects biometric data based
identification of Indians. The report is a severe indictment of the hasty and
`directionless' project which has been "conceptualised with no clarity of
purpose". Even the functional basis of the Unique Identification Authority
of India UIDAI is unclear and yet the project has been rolled out. The Standing
Committee found the biometric technology `uncertain' and 'untested'. Yet, the
UIDAI has gone on with the exercise.
There
is no data protection law in place. Even though the government had recognised
the need for a law to deal with security and confidentiality of information,
imposition of obligation of disclosure of information in certain cases,
impersonation at the time of enrolment, investigation of acts that constitute
offences and unauthorised disclosure of information, the UID/aadhaar project has
been allowed to march on without any such protection being put in place.
In
a significant development, a day long dharna on May 29, 2013 on Bhagat Singh Chowk,
near Gandhi Maidan, Patna comprising of leaders and participants from nine
minority communities of Sikh, Christian, Jain, Bengali, Buddhist and Muslims
wherein an appeal was made by CFCL to boycott UID/Aadhaar else all kinds of
minorities including political minorities will get profiled and tracked through
biometric identification.
It
is noteworthy that in a reply in the Lok Sabha on August 24, 2011, Union
Minister of State for Planning, Science & Technology and Earth Sciences informed
the Parliament about the commencement of operation of Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) before the enactment of the National Identification
Authority Bill, 2010. He categorically stated, “The Attorney General (AG)
has opined that the UIDAI could continue with its work till the enactment of the Bill.”
Since
the minister has assured the Parliament based on the legal opinion of the
Attorney General that the “UIDAI could continue with its work till the enactment of the Bill”, given
the fact that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has rejected the
National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 questioning the legality
of UIDAI, UID/Aadhaar project and the act of subordinate legislation for
biometric data collection, there is no legal basis for the continued work of
the UIDAI.
Attorney
General’s opinion provided defense of UIDAI’s work only till the enactment of
the Bill. Now this defence too now stands exhausted. It is also a fact that the
Attorney General’s legal opinion in general has been under cloud and has been
facing the flak of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
On
February 11, 2011, Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, UIDAI and Shri R.S. Sharma,
Director General, UIDAI (currently Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand) besides
the officials of Union Ministry of Planning had appeared before the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance.
The
NIDAI Bill was introduced on December 3, 2010 in the Rajya Sabha was meant for
legalizing and legitimizing the ongoing work done by Planning Commission’s UIDAI
since January 28, 2009 as is evident from clause 57 of the Bill. The rejection
of the Bill reveals that UIDAI officials could not defend the legally
indefensible work on UIDAI without statutory status. Since this provision along with the Bill has been
rejected the UIDAI itself has become legally indefensible.
The
Bill stated that it was meant to “to provide for the establishment of the
National Identification Authority of India for the purpose of issuing
identification numbers to individuals residing in India and to certain other
classes of individuals and manner of authentication of such individuals to
facilitate access to benefits and services to such individuals to which they
are entitled and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The
Bill did not define “to certain other classes of individuals”.
In
the matter of now rejected National Identification Authority of India (NIAI)
Bill, 2010, “NHRC’s views on the NIAI Bill, 2010″ in the Human Rights
Newsletter (Vol. 18 No.8, August 2011) reveals that UID/Aadhaar Number has
dangerous ramifications is quite relevant in this regard. NHRC’s view was
presented to the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance. The PSC
submitted its report to the Parliament.
Echoing
NHRC’s view on “need for protection of information” and “the possibility of
tampering with stored biometric information” in paragraph 5 (page no. 7 of the
NHRC newsletter) and “disclosure of information in the interest of national
security” mentioned in paragraph 9 (page no.8 of the newsletter), the Central
Government’s Approach Paper for Legislation on Privacy dated October 13, 2010
admits, “India does not currently have a general data protection statute” as
per information received from Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions through Letter Reference No.071/1/2010/-IR dated October 18, 2010.
On
UID Number, the Approach Paper on Privacy Bill stated, “Data privacy and the
need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is
stored in a decentralized 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.” The Approach Paper on
Privacy Bill discloses, “Once this happens, the separation of data that
currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat
to the identity of citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private
persons will be forever abandoned.
In
their testimony before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on June
29, 2011, Shri Rajiv Sharma, Secretary General, NHRC, Shri A.K. Garg, Registrar
(Law), NHRC and Shri J.P. Meena, Joint Secretary (P&A), NHRC expressed
their concerns. The report presented to the Parliament on December 13, 2011
records, “The Committee heard the representatives of the National Human Rights
Commission on “The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010”. The
major issues discussed during the sitting broadly related to nature, objective
and beneficiaries of aadhaar number; possible discrimination and specific
provisions that are required to be built in; safeguards needed for securing the
stored information by the proposed National Identification Authority of India;
implications of the provisions of the Bill on the individual‘s right to
privacy, etc.”
In
a setback to efforts to bulldoze UID and related schemes, following the
direction issued to the Union of India and Union Territory of Chandigarh by
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Civil Writ Petition 569 of 2013
filed in the High Court against Union of India and others, the Executive Order
for making Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar mandatory has been withdrawn.
In
its order the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice A K Sikri, Chief
Justice and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain dated February 19, 2013 had not noted
that the petition “raises a pure question of law.” Since the Executive Order
was withdrawn, the case too was disposed of March 2, 2013 with a two page
order. The Order observes, “In this writ petition filed as PIL, the
petitioner has challenged the vires of notification issued by Union of India
for making it compulsory to have UID Cards." It is further observed in the
order that “Second issue raised in this petition is that vide order dated
5.12.2012, respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh has given
directions to the Branch
In charge Registration-cum-Accountant, office of
Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh not to accept any application
for registration of vehicle and grant of learner/regular driving licence
without UID card.”
Such
attempts to make UID/Aadhaar have emerged as an act of bullying by the
government agencies.
The
petition before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate legislation
draws attention towards how all the residents and citizens of India are being
made subordinate to prisoner’s status by the ongoing collection of their
“biometric information” that includes finger prints, iris scan for permanent storage
in a Centralized Identities Data Register (CIDR) and NPR. This is being done
‘as per an approved strategy” by Planning Commission and Union Ministry of Home
Affairs without any legal mandate. CFCL demands that State Government
should dissociate itself from UIDAI and related biometric identification
exercises besides resisting attempts to erode State’s autonomy through entities
like NCTC and NATGRID. Bihar Government should oppose efforts underway to link
UID/Aadhaar with voter identity cards.
For Details:
Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum
for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb: 8227816731, 09818089660, E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com