The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has joined
government and PSU oil firms against the Supreme Court order making
Aadhaar card not mandatory for availing social benefits saying, its
directive has “very serious implications” in implementation of welfare
schemes.
The UIDAI also contended that its order dated September 23, putting the
onus on it to check that Aadhaar card should not be given to
undocumented migrants, impinges on the jurisdiction of the appropriate
authorities that are entrusted with the task of verifying citizenship.
In an application before the Supreme Court, the UIDAI submitted that
Aadhaar is stated to be a proof of identity and there are other agencies
to perform the task of verifying citizenship and detecting illegal
immigrants.
“UIDAI has been mandated to provide Aadhaar to resident of India as a
matter of conscious policy decision of government. Aadhaar is upfront
stated to be a proof of identity not citizenship. It may be mentioned
the government has specific agencies to perform the task of verifying
citizenship and detecting illegal immigrants,” it said.
“The interim order of the court in directing UIDAI to check the
citizenship status of a person applying for Aadhaar and identifying
illegal immigrants impinges on the jurisdiction of the appropriate
authorities under law that are entrusted with this task,” it said while
pleading with the court to modify the interim order against, which
Centre and oil PSUs have already approached the apex court.
‘Aadhaar infringes on our fundamental right to privacy’
Former Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, who went to court against the linking of state benefits to the UID scheme, says much money has been wasted on the ‘dangerous’ project
The Supreme Court order restraining the linking of services and
benefits to the 12-digit Aadhaar number has placed in doubt ambitious
plans by the Centre and several State governments to make the
‘voluntary’ Aadhaar scheme mandatory for access to services and
subsidies. The order was passed on a writ petition by retired justice of
the Karnataka High Court K.S. Puttaswamy, along with two other petitions referred from the Bombay and Madras High Courts. In an interview with The Hindu
in Bangalore a day after the Supreme Court verdict, the 88-year-old
judge-turned-litigant said this was the first time in his legal career,
spanning five decades, that he felt the need to petition the courts.
Excerpts:
Why did you choose to move the courts on this issue?
The way the government has gone about implementing this project is odd
and illegal. In 2011 [over a year after Aadhaar enrolments commenced in
the country] the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance rejected the
National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, on several
grounds. Yet, the government did not attempt to modify the Bill and
bring it back for parliamentary approval. It is not constitutional to
simply proceed using an executive order to implement a scheme that has
been rejected in this fashion.
What is your fundamental opposition to this project?
Apart from the fact that it does not have Parliament’s approval, the
project infringes upon our right to privacy, which flows from Article 21
that deals with the fundamental right to life. We are required to part
with biometric information, iris and fingerprints, and there is no
system to ensure that all this data will be safe and not misused.
My other concern, and I believe this is critical, is that it is easy for
anyone to get an Aadhaar number. The enrolment centres are run by
private operators so anyone can walk in and get one. This means that
[undocumented] immigrants can get one too and that’s a clear security
threat. Part of the political will for this project stems from this
motivation because obviously they [undocumented] immigrants are also a
vote bank for some
Many critics of Aadhaar (even those whose petitions are being heard
with yours) have focussed on other aspects such as the dangers of making
this ‘voluntary’ scheme a mandatory one for access to crucial services
and welfare.
Yes, that is also a point. Why must I get an Aadhaar when I already have
a ration card? Even at the recent hearing it has been reported that the
government submitted in court that the scheme is voluntary. But
everyone knows that today you cannot get your LPG subsidy in Tumkur, and
other districts, without this number. So, the right hand says it is
voluntary and the left says it is mandatory — then it is a plain lie.
They’re still taking inconsistent stands and look who is suffering —
citizens
The government submits that over Rs.50,000 crore has been spent on
the project. It is seeking a review of the SC order. Is it too late to
turn back now on this scheme?
No. It is not. That so much has been squandered without analysing the
benefits or dangers of this scheme shows a disregard for public money. I
think they didn’t think this through. In fact, there were voices even
within the government that were opposed to it. My understanding is that
the Supreme Court is unlikely to allow their review petition.
We’ll have to wait and see.
deepa.kurup@thehindu.co.in
Aadhaar's purpose in doubt as SC says it's not mandatory
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a crippling blow to UPA's showpiece Aadhaar scheme by ruling that it can only be issued to those with proven Indian nationality and cannot be mandatory for accessing public services and subsidies.
"In the meanwhile, the Aadhaar card cannot be made mandatory. If anyone applies for Aadhaar card, then you have to verify whether he is a citizen of India or not. These cards cannot be issued to illegal migrants," said a bench of Justices B S Chauhan and S A Bobde as they frowned upon the unique identity numbers being issued without verifying the antecedents of individuals.
The move is a serious setback to the government's plans to transfer cash and subsidies directly into bank accounts of beneficiaries. Meeting the verification criterion laid down by the apex court could prove to be a tough task because only a small part of the population has proof of nationality such as a passport. That the Unique Identification Authority of India, an entity floated by UPA-2 for rolling out the ambitious Aadhaar scheme, is a lean body dependent on vendors only adds to the complication. The UIDAI enjoys no legal backing either.
However, the SC order may come as a respite to citizens who were harried by the growing demand of authorities to link delivery of a whole array of services and subsidies such as those for cooking gas to Aadhaar cards. In states like Delhi, even marriage registration is now dependent on Aadhaar. Given the huge number of complaints about access to the cards, the insistence has become a major irritant for households.
The court's order came on a petition protesting the issuance of Aadhaar cards to illegal migrants.
Before the bench passed the interim order on a PIL filed by retired Karnataka High Court judge K Puttaswamy, solicitor general Mohan Parasaran and additional solicitor general L Nageswar Rao put up a mild resistance saying the cards were issued on voluntary basis and clarified that it was never meant to be mandatory.
"The enforcement machinery is tightened. Just because one or two aberrations being reported by the media does not mean the Aadhar cards are being issued to all and sundry," Parasaran said
The law officers denied that the Centre had issued any direction to states to make Aadhaar cards mandatory even as petitioners' counsel Anil Divan and Shyam Divan cited the Maharashtra example where government employees have been ordered to get Aadhaar cards issued in their name so as to receive salary.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a crippling blow to UPA's showpiece Aadhaar scheme by ruling that it can only be issued to those with proven Indian nationality and cannot be mandatory for accessing public services and subsidies.
"In the meanwhile, the Aadhaar card cannot be made mandatory. If anyone applies for Aadhaar card, then you have to verify whether he is a citizen of India or not. These cards cannot be issued to illegal migrants," said a bench of Justices B S Chauhan and S A Bobde as they frowned upon the unique identity numbers being issued without verifying the antecedents of individuals.
The move is a serious setback to the government's plans to transfer cash and subsidies directly into bank accounts of beneficiaries. Meeting the verification criterion laid down by the apex court could prove to be a tough task because only a small part of the population has proof of nationality such as a passport. That the Unique Identification Authority of India, an entity floated by UPA-2 for rolling out the ambitious Aadhaar scheme, is a lean body dependent on vendors only adds to the complication. The UIDAI enjoys no legal backing either.
However, the SC order may come as a respite to citizens who were harried by the growing demand of authorities to link delivery of a whole array of services and subsidies such as those for cooking gas to Aadhaar cards. In states like Delhi, even marriage registration is now dependent on Aadhaar. Given the huge number of complaints about access to the cards, the insistence has become a major irritant for households.
The court's order came on a petition protesting the issuance of Aadhaar cards to illegal migrants.
Before the bench passed the interim order on a PIL filed by retired Karnataka High Court judge K Puttaswamy, solicitor general Mohan Parasaran and additional solicitor general L Nageswar Rao put up a mild resistance saying the cards were issued on voluntary basis and clarified that it was never meant to be mandatory.
"The enforcement machinery is tightened. Just because one or two aberrations being reported by the media does not mean the Aadhar cards are being issued to all and sundry," Parasaran said
The law officers denied that the Centre had issued any direction to states to make Aadhaar cards mandatory even as petitioners' counsel Anil Divan and Shyam Divan cited the Maharashtra example where government employees have been ordered to get Aadhaar cards issued in their name so as to receive salary.
The counsel also alleged that Aadhaar cards were being issued to illegal migrants and made mandatory for getting gas connections and even registration of marriages, a charge denied by the Centre.
However, Shyam Divan countered saying that even the Bombay High Court registrar general's order asking all, including judges, to get Aadhaar cards were made to facilitate smooth transfer of salaries.
The bench wondered how such a direction could be issued when the Union government, the brain and financial power behind the scheme, was clear that it was a voluntary scheme.
After clarifying the voluntary nature of Aadhaar cards, the law officers requested the court not to pass an interim order restraining issuance of these identification cards to illegal migrants on the basis of their place of residence. The bench said, "How does this order affect the Union government? If we say the Aadhaar cards must not be issued to illegal migrants, who gets affected? Why can't the government check whether a person is an Indian citizen or not before issuing the card?
The court had issued notice on the PIL on November 30 last year. The petitioner had questioned the grant of UID numbers and Aadhaar cards to illegal migrants at a time when a bill to this effect, pending before Parliament, has already been rejected by the concerned parliamentary standing committee.
The PIL had requested the court to restrain the government from issuing UID numbers and Aadhaar cards till Parliament took a decision on the bill.
The petitioners, Justice Puttaswamy and another, said they had ascertained that the Unique Identification Number Project proposed to give UID numbers not only to citizens but also illegal migrants pursuant to a scheme framed by the government through an executive order of January 28, 2009.
Referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court on right to privacy of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioners said, "Collecting biometric information as a condition precedent for the issue of Aadhaar card is an invasion of right to privacy of citizens and thereby this can only be done by a law enacted by Parliament and hence, beyond the executive power."
No comments:
Post a Comment