Rajya Sabha on Monday passed the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019, with Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad asserting that the incumbent government will soon bring a comprehensive law on the data protection.

"We will bring a comprehensive data protection law. Data sovereignty is integral to us and it will never be compromised," Prasad said.

The union minister said that the architecture of Aadhaar was not touched and just the concerned law was changed.

Prasad also contended that people like Bill Gates and Thomas Friedman appreciate Aadhaar.

The Bill seeks to amend the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

It allows voluntary use of Aadhaar as proof of identity for opening a bank account and procuring a mobile phone.

The Upper House has been adjourned till 11 am tomorrow (July 9).

Rajya Sabha on Monday passed the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019, with Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad asserting that the incumbent government will soon bring a comprehensive law on the data protection.

Rajya Sabha on Monday passed the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019, with Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad asserting that the incumbent government will soon bring a comprehensive law on the data protection. "We will bring a comprehensive data protection law. Data sovereignty is integral to us and it will never be compromised," Prasad said. The union minister said that the architecture of Aadhaar was not touched and just the concerned law was changed. Prasad also contended that people like Bill Gates and Thomas Friedman appreciate Aadhaar. The Bill seeks to amend the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It allows voluntary use of Aadhaar as proof of identity for opening a bank account and procuring a mobile phone. The Upper House has been adjourned till 11 am tomorrow (July 9).

Rajya Sabha passes Aadhaar Bill, government says will bring comprehensive law on data protection

Estonia is one of the most advanced digital societies in the world. In 2007, a small country in Europe, Estonia was under a cyberattack. The attack paralysed the entire digital network of the country and brought it to a standstill.&nbsp;

More than ten years later, the country is showing the world way forward in cybersecurity and digitisation.&nbsp;

WION's Principal Diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal spoke to Estonia's ambassador to India, Riho Kruuv on security in the cyberspace and dealing with privacy on social media platforms.

WION: What lessons you learned from the 2007 cyberattacks?

Riho Kruuv: One of the lessons you can get from Estonia is when life gives you lemons turn it into lemonade. As u mentioned, cyber attack, guess one year later we had our government services covered with blockchain technology. There was also NATO cybersecurity centre established in Estonia. We used the attack as a major lesson to learn. Also, what is important to mention is we are very advance in technology, that is true, and everyone understands that. But we see as a major guiding principle is that you have to focus on security also. Digital solutions and cybersecurity two sides of the same coin. We save 2% of GDP just by going digital. It comes from making processes faster and less corruption.

WION: What can Estonia give to New Delhi?

Riho Kruuv: We have worked very closely with India. We have seen a lot of interest from union and state government's side to come and explore how Estonia dealing with e-governance, cybersecurity and blockchain. We just hosted two delegations. We would like to bring our companies and develop customer solutions for India.

WION: How do you see India's digital India or Aadhar programmes?

Riho Kruuv: I have been in India since August 2016. And to be honest, when I came to India, Aadhar was launched, of course, Digital India was started earlier. But it was the time things had started popping up and major development started. Was impressed by the speed how India was moving particularly on the penetration of Mobil Technology. And a number of Mobil subscribers and number of smartphones. In Estonia, we have leapfrogged many technology platforms. Electronic election Machine, we don't use them at all. We have developed a solution of voting over the internet. &nbsp;We used it since 2005. Many opportunities were we can work together and learn from each other. This Aadhar card, the concept of Indian digital identification, I love it a lot.

WION: Privacy and security on the social media platform have been a concern. How do you deal with it?

Riho Kruuv: Well, of course, we all use Google, Facebook and other technology platform or applications. It seems to be that, people give much more information to those social media platform than to the government. What comes is a high level of trust between government and people in Estonia. Personal data of Estonians having digital identities has never been compromised. Level of security of the system, you can understand, when we use for election, it must be good and trusted. It 30% of the population use the internet to cast vote.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Estonia is one of the most advanced digital societies in the world. In 2007, a small country in Europe, Estonia was under a cyberattack. The attack paralysed the entire digital network of the country and brought it to a standstill.

Estonia is one of the most advanced digital societies in the world. In 2007, a small country in Europe, Estonia was under a cyberattack. The attack paralysed the entire digital network of the country and brought it to a standstill. More than ten years later, the country is showing the world way forward in cybersecurity and digitisation. WION's Principal Diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal spoke to Estonia's ambassador to India, Riho Kruuv on security in the cyberspace and dealing with privacy on social media platforms. WION: What lessons you learned from the 2007 cyberattacks? Riho Kruuv: One of the lessons you can get from Estonia is when life gives you lemons turn it into lemonade. As u mentioned, cyber attack, guess one year later we had our government services covered with blockchain technology. There was also NATO cybersecurity centre established in Estonia. We used the attack as a major lesson to learn. Also, what is important to mention is we are very advance in technology, that is true, and everyone understands that. But we see as a major guiding principle is that you have to focus on security also. Digital solutions and cybersecurity two sides of the same coin. We save 2% of GDP just by going digital. It comes from making processes faster and less corruption. WION: What can Estonia give to New Delhi? Riho Kruuv: We have worked very closely with India. We have seen a lot of interest from union and state government's side to come and explore how Estonia dealing with e-governance, cybersecurity and blockchain. We just hosted two delegations. We would like to bring our companies and develop customer solutions for India. WION: How do you see India's digital India or Aadhar programmes? Riho Kruuv: I have been in India since August 2016. And to be honest, when I came to India, Aadhar was launched, of course, Digital India was started earlier. But it was the time things had started popping up and major development started. Was impressed by the speed how India was moving particularly on the penetration of Mobil Technology. And a number of Mobil subscribers and number of smartphones. In Estonia, we have leapfrogged many technology platforms. Electronic election Machine, we don't use them at all. We have developed a solution of voting over the internet. We used it since 2005. Many opportunities were we can work together and learn from each other. This Aadhar card, the concept of Indian digital identification, I love it a lot. WION: Privacy and security on the social media platform have been a concern. How do you deal with it? Riho Kruuv: Well, of course, we all use Google, Facebook and other technology platform or applications. It seems to be that, people give much more information to those social media platform than to the government. What comes is a high level of trust between government and people in Estonia. Personal data of Estonians having digital identities has never been compromised. Level of security of the system, you can understand, when we use for election, it must be good and trusted. It 30% of the population use the internet to cast vote.

When life gives you lemons, turn them into lemonade: Estonian ambassador to WION on cyber attacks

The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar will have different impact for different folks, a relief for those who no longer have to link their cards to their bank accounts and mobiles but tying millions dependent on subsidies to the biometric id, say activists and others.&nbsp;

The apex court Wednesday declared the Aadhaar scheme constitutionally valid, striking down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.&nbsp;

Some like Bipasha Mukherjee, 21, whose mobile stopped working for 72 hours last month, welcomed the judgement.&nbsp;

Following a visit to the telecom company's customer care centre, she was told the connection was disrupted because the "sim was not linked to her Aadhaar card".

"I was completely cut off for three days without any explanation from the telecom company," she said. 
However, Bipasha's relief did not trickle down to Gauri Devi, who works as a household help in Dwarka and needs the Aadhaar to avail facilities of welfare schemes and government subsidies.

In fact, Gauri said, it further polarises the haves and the have-nots.

She told PTI that she and her two sons applied for Aadhaar, but only her younger son received the document.

While the younger son could get admission to the Vidya Bharti School in North West Delhi, life became tougher for her. Collecting rations and accessing subsidised health services for her family was "impossible" without the card.&nbsp;

"Nothing happens without Aadhaar. To avail each subsidy, be it for food or health services, we are supposed to have the card. I did not get my Aadhaar even after registering myself...We are being deprived for no fault of ours," she said.&nbsp;

According to farmer leader and activist Vijoo Krishnan, food security, particularly among the poor, has been "worst hit" by the judgement.&nbsp;

According to data revealed earlier this year by the Right To Food (RTF) campaign, an advocacy group, 14 people allegedly starved to death in Jharkhand over 10 months after being denied rations because they didn't have Aadhaar cards.&nbsp;

"Denial of ration/food grains have been reported widely over UID issues including problems of biometric... The starvation deaths in Jharkhand, massive malnutrition and related deaths of children in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and tribal areas are pointers to the danger that lies in such a judgement," the Delhi-based activist said.&nbsp;

According to human rights organisation Amnesty India, "making an Aadhaar card a prerequisite to access essential services and benefits can obstruct access to several constitutional rights, including the rights of people to food, health care, education and social security".&nbsp;

Right to food activist Dipa Sinha added that they were expecting that welfare schemes would be delinked from Aaadhar too. 
"So, in that way the judgment is quite disappointing," she said.&nbsp;

Not everyone agreed with her.

Charles Assisi, who has co-authored an upcoming book titled, "The Aadhaar Effect: Why the World's Largest Identity Project Matters", said the verdict was, "very balanced" and that the country was "headed in the right direction".

According to him, the scheme, in fact, benefits people at the bottom of the totem pole the most.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

"One of the things we figured out is that the poorest of the country, that run into a few hundred million people, have absolutely no form of identity. You have to provide them with that so they can claim their rightful dues," Assisi told PTI.

"It brings them into the formal economy," he said.

Social media, too, was abuzz with mixed reactions.&nbsp;

While many took to Twitter to express their relief over freedom from "harassment" at the hands of banks and telecom companies, others used the social networking site to voice their disappointment.&nbsp;

A Jaiveer Shergill on Twitter "withdrew" his consent to share his data, and asked telecom companies and banks to "delete" the information they might have about him.&nbsp;"Dear Mobile Phone Operators &amp; Banks-You harassed us &amp; forced us to link #Aadhaar to your system-After #SupremeCourt Judgment -Kindly delete the data collected otherwise u shall b considered in possession of stolen property as I withdraw my consent to use my info #AadhaarVerdict," he tweeted.&nbsp;

Many noted that the verdict "has hurt welfare", adding that there was need and possibility of a review petition.&nbsp;

"Some important Modifications to #Aadhaar sought by majority judgment..But it is overall a disappointment as it doesn't consider large failures reported by welfare beneficiaries &amp; that mandation of #UID has hurt welfare. JYC's strong dissent opens up possibility of a review petition," Srinivasan Ramani tweeted, referring to Justice D Y Chandrachud's dissenting judgement.

Another tweeter Sunit Arora wrote the constitutional validation of Adhaar will result in great suffering for the poor.&nbsp;

"Very disappointing #Aadhaar verdict. Constitutional validity sets the stage for a (future) fascist state. The abject poor will suffer the most.

"A future government will HAVE to challenge this," Arora wrote.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar will have different impact for different folks, a relief for those who no longer have to link their cards to their bank accounts and mobiles but tying millions dependent on subsidies to the biometric id, say activists and others.

The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar will have different impact for different folks, a relief for those who no longer have to link their cards to their bank accounts and mobiles but tying millions dependent on subsidies to the biometric id, say activists and others. The apex court Wednesday declared the Aadhaar scheme constitutionally valid, striking down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. Some like Bipasha Mukherjee, 21, whose mobile stopped working for 72 hours last month, welcomed the judgement. Following a visit to the telecom company's customer care centre, she was told the connection was disrupted because the "sim was not linked to her Aadhaar card". "I was completely cut off for three days without any explanation from the telecom company," she said. However, Bipasha's relief did not trickle down to Gauri Devi, who works as a household help in Dwarka and needs the Aadhaar to avail facilities of welfare schemes and government subsidies. In fact, Gauri said, it further polarises the haves and the have-nots. She told PTI that she and her two sons applied for Aadhaar, but only her younger son received the document. While the younger son could get admission to the Vidya Bharti School in North West Delhi, life became tougher for her. Collecting rations and accessing subsidised health services for her family was "impossible" without the card. "Nothing happens without Aadhaar. To avail each subsidy, be it for food or health services, we are supposed to have the card. I did not get my Aadhaar even after registering myself...We are being deprived for no fault of ours," she said. According to farmer leader and activist Vijoo Krishnan, food security, particularly among the poor, has been "worst hit" by the judgement. According to data revealed earlier this year by the Right To Food (RTF) campaign, an advocacy group, 14 people allegedly starved to death in Jharkhand over 10 months after being denied rations because they didn't have Aadhaar cards. "Denial of ration/food grains have been reported widely over UID issues including problems of biometric... The starvation deaths in Jharkhand, massive malnutrition and related deaths of children in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and tribal areas are pointers to the danger that lies in such a judgement," the Delhi-based activist said. According to human rights organisation Amnesty India, "making an Aadhaar card a prerequisite to access essential services and benefits can obstruct access to several constitutional rights, including the rights of people to food, health care, education and social security". Right to food activist Dipa Sinha added that they were expecting that welfare schemes would be delinked from Aaadhar too. "So, in that way the judgment is quite disappointing," she said. Not everyone agreed with her. Charles Assisi, who has co-authored an upcoming book titled, "The Aadhaar Effect: Why the World's Largest Identity Project Matters", said the verdict was, "very balanced" and that the country was "headed in the right direction". According to him, the scheme, in fact, benefits people at the bottom of the totem pole the most. "One of the things we figured out is that the poorest of the country, that run into a few hundred million people, have absolutely no form of identity. You have to provide them with that so they can claim their rightful dues," Assisi told PTI. "It brings them into the formal economy," he said. Social media, too, was abuzz with mixed reactions. While many took to Twitter to express their relief over freedom from "harassment" at the hands of banks and telecom companies, others used the social networking site to voice their disappointment. A Jaiveer Shergill on Twitter "withdrew" his consent to share his data, and asked telecom companies and banks to "delete" the information they might have about him. "Dear Mobile Phone Operators & Banks-You harassed us & forced us to link #Aadhaar to your system-After #SupremeCourt Judgment -Kindly delete the data collected otherwise u shall b considered in possession of stolen property as I withdraw my consent to use my info #AadhaarVerdict," he tweeted. Many noted that the verdict "has hurt welfare", adding that there was need and possibility of a review petition. "Some important Modifications to #Aadhaar sought by majority judgment..But it is overall a disappointment as it doesn't consider large failures reported by welfare beneficiaries & that mandation of #UID has hurt welfare. JYC's strong dissent opens up possibility of a review petition," Srinivasan Ramani tweeted, referring to Justice D Y Chandrachud's dissenting judgement. Another tweeter Sunit Arora wrote the constitutional validation of Adhaar will result in great suffering for the poor. "Very disappointing #Aadhaar verdict. Constitutional validity sets the stage for a (future) fascist state. The abject poor will suffer the most. "A future government will HAVE to challenge this," Arora wrote.

Aadhaar verdict: Different impact for different folks

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pompeo-says-trump-kim-summit-more-likely-after-october-report-167820">Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Trump-Kim summit more likely after October: Report</a>

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Wednesday he was working to set up the next summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but any meeting will likely be after October.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-sees-victory-sc-judgement-says-private-usage-restricted-167800">Aadhaar verdict: UIDAI sees victory in Supreme Court judgement, says private usage restricted</a>

The UIDAI Wednesday termed the Supreme Court judgement, which upheld Aadhaar as a constitutionally valid scheme, as a victory.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/10-afghan-children-2-women-dead-air-strike-un-initial-report-167798">10 Afghan children, 2 women dead in air strike: UN initial report</a>

An air strike appears to have killed 12 members of an Afghan family, most of them children, the United Nations said, citing preliminary findings, as US and Afghan forces ramp up aerial bombardments against militants.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-labour-partys-corbyn-say-will-vote-against-pm-mays-brexit-deal-it-stands-167816">Labour will vote against PM May's Chequers Brexit plan, says Jeremy Corbyn</a>

British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said on Wednesday Labour would vote against a Brexit deal based on Theresa May's proposals, the strongest warning yet to a prime minister whose plan to leave the European Union is hanging by a thread.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russian-parliament-passes-pension-bill-key-second-reading-167808">Russian parliament passes pension bill in </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russian-parliament-passes-pension-bill-key-second-reading-167808">key</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russian-parliament-passes-pension-bill-key-second-reading-167808"> second reading</a>

The Russian parliament's lower house, State Duma passed the controversial pension bill in key second reading on Wednesday.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Trump-Kim summit more likely after October: Report Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Wednesday he was working to set up the next summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but any meeting will likely be after October.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Trump-Kim summit more likely after October: Report Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Wednesday he was working to set up the next summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but any meeting will likely be after October. Aadhaar verdict: UIDAI sees victory in Supreme Court judgement, says private usage restricted The UIDAI Wednesday termed the Supreme Court judgement, which upheld Aadhaar as a constitutionally valid scheme, as a victory. 10 Afghan children, 2 women dead in air strike: UN initial report An air strike appears to have killed 12 members of an Afghan family, most of them children, the United Nations said, citing preliminary findings, as US and Afghan forces ramp up aerial bombardments against militants. Labour will vote against PM May's Chequers Brexit plan, says Jeremy Corbyn British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said on Wednesday Labour would vote against a Brexit deal based on Theresa May's proposals, the strongest warning yet to a prime minister whose plan to leave the European Union is hanging by a thread. Russian parliament passes pension bill in key second reading The Russian parliament's lower house, State Duma passed the controversial pension bill in key second reading on Wednesday.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The judiciary has been able to restore balance to Aaadhar scheme. It was a project which came to life during UPA. It became an act when Narendra Modi came to power. It was cleared as a money bill in Lok Sabha. It could have been a collective victory but because of political bitterness the matter became sub-judice and the Supreme Court had the last say. Today, everyone is claiming victory in the political circle. BJP is relieved because Aadhar survived judicial scrutiny.&nbsp;

The Opposition is happy because many contentious portions were struck down by the Supreme Court of India.&nbsp;

It was a majority judgement which not only reconciled the Right to Privacy but also kept the legislative mandate untouched by judicial overreach.&nbsp;

The judgement makes life easier for the parents, scholars, teachers and common citizens. Not everything personal will have to be shared with the state.&nbsp;

The judiciary ensured that the data telecom companies harvested also be destroyed. The verdict also ensured that such demands also do not crop up in future.

The only issue is that what happens to the data which has already been harvested by the corporates. It also ensures that the state cannot immediately access UIDAI on security grounds on a whim. Now they will have to take permission from the court. The data will need to be destroyed after authentication. The Supreme Court judgement takes away rough edges of the bill. 
&nbsp; 
Today, citizens easily share personal data on various sites like Facebook. The shared data includes a range of things. From credit card numbers to personal data like videos and pictures.

All get milked by the corporates later. Many argue that it is voluntary and not forced upon. &nbsp;

The argument is that Aadhaar is mandatory. But today India needs a system like Aadhaar. It has its benefits too. It kills multiple identities which is a big bane for the Indian state.

The purpose of the scheme is noble - to ensure that state subsidy does not get pilfered away. &nbsp;

It was considered to be a “Ram Baan” against corruption and terrorism. But on the way, it became an all-inclusive scheme which demanded all walks of life be covered under one banner.&nbsp;

It was for this reason that objections arose. Today, the SC has also taken banks out of Aadhaar’s ambit apart from schools, UGCs and NEET.&nbsp;

The judiciary, this time, has prevented legislative outreach.&nbsp;

The mandate of elections should not be misused to push scheme where national consensus does not exist.&nbsp;

The decision on Brexit was taken after a referendum. The politicians did not force down there view on the public which could have done in the UK.

In India, it is not possible to have a referendum on vexed issues. The politicians must try to build consensus even if it eludes them. Despite the passage of the bill in Lok Sabha, ultimately, its legitimacy today is flowing from the court. It is not healthy in long run.&nbsp;

The push for a strong and good governance must have public participation. Despite the fact that demonetisation caused great pain, public supported Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The public believed in him. It is for this reason that the law and order problem did not occur. Aadhaar is a reality and government should not tinker with the consensus which has been brought through the court’s verdict. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The judiciary has been able to restore balance to Aaadhar scheme. It was a project which came to life during UPA. It became an act when Narendra Modi came to power.

The judiciary has been able to restore balance to Aaadhar scheme. It was a project which came to life during UPA. It became an act when Narendra Modi came to power. It was cleared as a money bill in Lok Sabha. It could have been a collective victory but because of political bitterness the matter became sub-judice and the Supreme Court had the last say. Today, everyone is claiming victory in the political circle. BJP is relieved because Aadhar survived judicial scrutiny. The Opposition is happy because many contentious portions were struck down by the Supreme Court of India. It was a majority judgement which not only reconciled the Right to Privacy but also kept the legislative mandate untouched by judicial overreach. The judgement makes life easier for the parents, scholars, teachers and common citizens. Not everything personal will have to be shared with the state. The judiciary ensured that the data telecom companies harvested also be destroyed. The verdict also ensured that such demands also do not crop up in future. The only issue is that what happens to the data which has already been harvested by the corporates. It also ensures that the state cannot immediately access UIDAI on security grounds on a whim. Now they will have to take permission from the court. The data will need to be destroyed after authentication. The Supreme Court judgement takes away rough edges of the bill. Today, citizens easily share personal data on various sites like Facebook. The shared data includes a range of things. From credit card numbers to personal data like videos and pictures. All get milked by the corporates later. Many argue that it is voluntary and not forced upon. The argument is that Aadhaar is mandatory. But today India needs a system like Aadhaar. It has its benefits too. It kills multiple identities which is a big bane for the Indian state. The purpose of the scheme is noble - to ensure that state subsidy does not get pilfered away. It was considered to be a “Ram Baan” against corruption and terrorism. But on the way, it became an all-inclusive scheme which demanded all walks of life be covered under one banner. It was for this reason that objections arose. Today, the SC has also taken banks out of Aadhaar’s ambit apart from schools, UGCs and NEET. The judiciary, this time, has prevented legislative outreach. The mandate of elections should not be misused to push scheme where national consensus does not exist. The decision on Brexit was taken after a referendum. The politicians did not force down there view on the public which could have done in the UK. In India, it is not possible to have a referendum on vexed issues. The politicians must try to build consensus even if it eludes them. Despite the passage of the bill in Lok Sabha, ultimately, its legitimacy today is flowing from the court. It is not healthy in long run. The push for a strong and good governance must have public participation. Despite the fact that demonetisation caused great pain, public supported Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The public believed in him. It is for this reason that the law and order problem did not occur. Aadhaar is a reality and government should not tinker with the consensus which has been brought through the court’s verdict. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Judiciary restores the balance in Aadhaar, curtails legislative outreach

The following is the chronology of events leading up to the Supreme Court on Wednesday declaring the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid although it struck down some provisions including the linking of the biometric ID with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions:

* January 2009: Planning Commission notification on UIDAI.

* 2010-2011: National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 introduced.

* November&nbsp;2012: Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy and others file PILs in SC challenging validity of Aadhaar.

* November 2013: Supreme Court orders all states and Union Territories be impleaded as respondents.

* March 3, 2016: Aadhaar Bill, 2016 introduced in Lok Sabha; later passed as Money Bill.

* May 2017: Former Union minister and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh moves SC challenging the Centre's decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill.

* August 24, 2017: Supreme Court nine-judge bench rules that right to privacy is a fundamental right.

* December 15: Supreme Court extends deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes till March 31, 2018.

* January 17, 2018: Supreme Court five-judge bench begins hearing Aadhaar case.

* January 25: Supreme Court asks Chhattisgarh HC to modify in 10 days its order directing all trial courts in the state to mandatorily accept copies of Aadhaar card for releasing an accused on bail.

* February 19: Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks direction to EC to take appropriate steps to implement an 'Aadhaar based election voting system'.

* February 21: Supreme Court says the alleged defect that citizens' biometric details under the Aadhaar scheme were being collected without any law, could be cured by subsequently bringing a statute.

* March 7: Supreme Court says Aadhaar number not mandatory for enrolment of students in all India exams.

* March 13: SC extends March 31 deadline of Aadhaar linking till it gives its order.

* March 22: UIDAI CEO says breaking the Aadhaar encryption may take "more than the age of the universe for the fastest computer on earth".

* March&nbsp;28: Social activist Reshma Prasad seeks direction to the Centre to create a separate third gender category option on PAN cards for transgenders.

* April 3: Centre tells SC Aadhaar law is just, fair &amp; reasonable.

* April 17: Supreme Court raises concerns that there is a threat of Aadhaar data misuse.

* April 25: Supreme Court questions Centre on mandatory seeding of Aadhaar with mobile.

* May 10: Supreme Court reserves verdict.

* September 26: SC upholds constitutional validity of Aadhaar but strikes down certain provisions 
Including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.&nbsp;

The following is the chronology of events leading up to the Supreme Court on Wednesday declaring the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid although it struck down some provisions including the linking of the biometric ID with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions: * January 2009: Planning Commission notification on UIDAI.

The following is the chronology of events leading up to the Supreme Court on Wednesday declaring the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid although it struck down some provisions including the linking of the biometric ID with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions: * January 2009: Planning Commission notification on UIDAI. * 2010-2011: National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 introduced. * November 2012: Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy and others file PILs in SC challenging validity of Aadhaar. * November 2013: Supreme Court orders all states and Union Territories be impleaded as respondents. * March 3, 2016: Aadhaar Bill, 2016 introduced in Lok Sabha; later passed as Money Bill. * May 2017: Former Union minister and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh moves SC challenging the Centre's decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill. * August 24, 2017: Supreme Court nine-judge bench rules that right to privacy is a fundamental right. * December 15: Supreme Court extends deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes till March 31, 2018. * January 17, 2018: Supreme Court five-judge bench begins hearing Aadhaar case. * January 25: Supreme Court asks Chhattisgarh HC to modify in 10 days its order directing all trial courts in the state to mandatorily accept copies of Aadhaar card for releasing an accused on bail. * February 19: Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks direction to EC to take appropriate steps to implement an 'Aadhaar based election voting system'. * February 21: Supreme Court says the alleged defect that citizens' biometric details under the Aadhaar scheme were being collected without any law, could be cured by subsequently bringing a statute. * March 7: Supreme Court says Aadhaar number not mandatory for enrolment of students in all India exams. * March 13: SC extends March 31 deadline of Aadhaar linking till it gives its order. * March 22: UIDAI CEO says breaking the Aadhaar encryption may take "more than the age of the universe for the fastest computer on earth". * March 28: Social activist Reshma Prasad seeks direction to the Centre to create a separate third gender category option on PAN cards for transgenders. * April 3: Centre tells SC Aadhaar law is just, fair & reasonable. * April 17: Supreme Court raises concerns that there is a threat of Aadhaar data misuse. * April 25: Supreme Court questions Centre on mandatory seeding of Aadhaar with mobile. * May 10: Supreme Court reserves verdict. * September 26: SC upholds constitutional validity of Aadhaar but strikes down certain provisions Including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.

Aadhaar judgement: The timeline of Aadhaar case

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday passed a crucial verdict as it upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme.&nbsp;

The historic verdict was pronounced by a constitutional bench of five- judges comprising -- Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan -- led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Following are the quotable quotes the five judges.

It is better to be unique than the best.&nbsp;Best is number one, but unique means the only one: Justice A K Sikri&nbsp;

"Only minimum biometrics of iris and fingerprints are sought. The information is collected in silos. There is no merging of silos. Authentication is not on the Internet, nature of the transaction is not shared and registered devices are used," said justice Sikri while ruling out the scare that Aadhaar could lead to a surveillance state.

"There is nothing in the Aadhaar Act that violates right to privacy of an individual, " said Justice Sikri.

"There is no possibility of obtaining a duplicate Aadhaar card", he said, adding "there is sufficient defence mechanism for authentication in Aadhaar scheme."

"Mandating Aadhaar for benefits and services under Section 7 would lead to a situation in which citizens will not be able to live without Aadhaar," observed Justice Chandrachud.

"Aadhaar negates pluralistic identities and reduces a person to just 12 digits," Said Justice Chandrachud.

Justice Chandrachud says "UIDAI has no accountability/responsibility for storage or leakage of data."

Justice Bhushan says biometric data contains certain personal information of citizens and the breach, if any, has to be ascertained.

"Government and UIDAI are empowered to cure defects in Aadhaar scheme" 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday passed a crucial verdict as it upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. The historic verdict was pronounced by a constitutional bench of five- judges comprising -- Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan -- led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday passed a crucial verdict as it upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. The historic verdict was pronounced by a constitutional bench of five- judges comprising -- Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan -- led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Following are the quotable quotes the five judges. It is better to be unique than the best. Best is number one, but unique means the only one: Justice A K Sikri "Only minimum biometrics of iris and fingerprints are sought. The information is collected in silos. There is no merging of silos. Authentication is not on the Internet, nature of the transaction is not shared and registered devices are used," said justice Sikri while ruling out the scare that Aadhaar could lead to a surveillance state. "There is nothing in the Aadhaar Act that violates right to privacy of an individual, " said Justice Sikri. "There is no possibility of obtaining a duplicate Aadhaar card", he said, adding "there is sufficient defence mechanism for authentication in Aadhaar scheme." "Mandating Aadhaar for benefits and services under Section 7 would lead to a situation in which citizens will not be able to live without Aadhaar," observed Justice Chandrachud. "Aadhaar negates pluralistic identities and reduces a person to just 12 digits," Said Justice Chandrachud. Justice Chandrachud says "UIDAI has no accountability/responsibility for storage or leakage of data." Justice Bhushan says biometric data contains certain personal information of citizens and the breach, if any, has to be ascertained. "Government and UIDAI are empowered to cure defects in Aadhaar scheme"

Aadhaar judgement: Quotable quotes of judges

Hours after Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar, former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram launched a scathing attack on the government and said that BJP led NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a ''monster'' that will rule every aspect of a person's life.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
''The NDA tried to convert <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758">Aadhaar</a> into a monster that will rule every aspect of a person's life. And the NDA had been firmly rebuffed,'' Chidambaram tweeted.

The majority judgment in the Aadhaar case has retrieved the UPA's ''original'' idea of Aadhaar, he said in another tweet.

Aadhaar was meant to be a ''benign instrument'' to deliver benefits, subsidies and services to the poor. Glad that the UPA's policy has been vindicated, he said.

Picking on NDA, the Congress leader said the dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments,&nbsp;

''The dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments, especially the imperious NDA government. They would do well to heed those lessons,'' he said in another tweet.

Justice Chandrachud in his judgment said passing of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill is a fraud on the Constitution.&nbsp;

''The Act came perilously close to being struck down on the ground it was passed as a Money Bill when it was not. The Act was saved by judicial forbearance,''&nbsp;Chidambaram said.

Several provisions of the Act and the Regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional, he said and added the Supreme Court judgement is a humbling lesson for the Ministry of Law.

Congress leader said&nbsp;Aadhaar remains work in progress and the future government will surely bring in amendments.

''For now, we can be satisfied that a rampaging government has been restrained and the reach of Aadhaar has been contained to benefits, subsidies and services paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India,'' he further said.

Hours after Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar, former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram launched a scathing attack on the government and said that BJP led NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a ''monster'' that will rule every aspect of a person's life.

Hours after Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar, former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram launched a scathing attack on the government and said that BJP led NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a ''monster'' that will rule every aspect of a person's life. ''The NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a monster that will rule every aspect of a person's life. And the NDA had been firmly rebuffed,'' Chidambaram tweeted. The majority judgment in the Aadhaar case has retrieved the UPA's ''original'' idea of Aadhaar, he said in another tweet. Aadhaar was meant to be a ''benign instrument'' to deliver benefits, subsidies and services to the poor. Glad that the UPA's policy has been vindicated, he said. Picking on NDA, the Congress leader said the dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments, ''The dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments, especially the imperious NDA government. They would do well to heed those lessons,'' he said in another tweet. Justice Chandrachud in his judgment said passing of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill is a fraud on the Constitution. ''The Act came perilously close to being struck down on the ground it was passed as a Money Bill when it was not. The Act was saved by judicial forbearance,'' Chidambaram said. Several provisions of the Act and the Regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional, he said and added the Supreme Court judgement is a humbling lesson for the Ministry of Law. Congress leader said Aadhaar remains work in progress and the future government will surely bring in amendments. ''For now, we can be satisfied that a rampaging government has been restrained and the reach of Aadhaar has been contained to benefits, subsidies and services paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India,'' he further said.

NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a 'monster': P Chidambaram 

Finance minister Arun Jaitley welcomed Supreme Court's decision of upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme as he called the verdict "historic" and said that its concept has been accepted after judicial review.

"It is a historic order, Aadhaar's concept has been accepted after judicial review, we welcome this decision of Supreme Court," Jaitley said in a press briefing after he chaired a cabinet meeting in the capital.

Taking a dig at Congress, Jaitley said, "Everyone who has been criticizing Aadhaar should understand that they cannot defy technology. Mainstream should accept changes, one can understand the fringe being against".

He continued his attack by saying that the "Congress cuts a very sorry figure here, they introduced the idea but they did not know what to do with it." &nbsp;

Elaborating on the importance of Aadhaar for proper distribution of welfare scheme and its benefits, he said&nbsp;the government is saving over Rs 90,000 crore due to Aadhaar.

The top court pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law today where it <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">upheld the validity of the Unique Identification number</a>.

"Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court.

The court's judgement means that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758">private bodies like mobile telecom operator companies</a>, e-commerce firms, private banks cannot mandatorily ask for Aadhaar details of their customers.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley welcomed Supreme Court's decision of upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme as he called the verdict "historic" and said that its concept has been accepted after judicial review.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley welcomed Supreme Court's decision of upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme as he called the verdict "historic" and said that its concept has been accepted after judicial review. "It is a historic order, Aadhaar's concept has been accepted after judicial review, we welcome this decision of Supreme Court," Jaitley said in a press briefing after he chaired a cabinet meeting in the capital. Taking a dig at Congress, Jaitley said, "Everyone who has been criticizing Aadhaar should understand that they cannot defy technology. Mainstream should accept changes, one can understand the fringe being against". He continued his attack by saying that the "Congress cuts a very sorry figure here, they introduced the idea but they did not know what to do with it." Elaborating on the importance of Aadhaar for proper distribution of welfare scheme and its benefits, he said the government is saving over Rs 90,000 crore due to Aadhaar. The top court pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law today where it upheld the validity of the Unique Identification number. "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court. The court's judgement means that private bodies like mobile telecom operator companies, e-commerce firms, private banks cannot mandatorily ask for Aadhaar details of their customers.

'It is a historic order', says Jaitley after Supreme Court's Aadhaar verdict

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce the crucial judgment on petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar on Wednesday.

The case will be&nbsp;heard&nbsp;by the five-judge constitutional bench comprising, chief justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

The top court tomorrow will essentially decide on whether Aadhaar government can continue seeking it as a mandatory identification in the name of furthering its welfare goals.

Last year, the Central government had made it mandatory for all financial institutions including banks, to verify and link Aadhaar of the customers with their accounts.&nbsp; It also made it mandatory to link the unique identification number with welfare schemes, as well as essential services like banking and phone, in the name of weeding out benami deals and black money.

While this was seen as a move of integrating a number of services, the system faced flak from the nation, particularly due to numerous reports suggesting data breaches.

However, in March this year, the Supreme Court indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones.

In the same month, the government stated that around 16,65,85,421 Aadhaar cars had been linked with PermanentAccountn Number (PAN) as on March 5.

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce the crucial judgment on petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar on Wednesday. The case will be heard by the five-judge constitutional bench comprising, chief justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce the crucial judgment on petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar on Wednesday. The case will be heard by the five-judge constitutional bench comprising, chief justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The top court tomorrow will essentially decide on whether Aadhaar government can continue seeking it as a mandatory identification in the name of furthering its welfare goals. Last year, the Central government had made it mandatory for all financial institutions including banks, to verify and link Aadhaar of the customers with their accounts. It also made it mandatory to link the unique identification number with welfare schemes, as well as essential services like banking and phone, in the name of weeding out benami deals and black money. While this was seen as a move of integrating a number of services, the system faced flak from the nation, particularly due to numerous reports suggesting data breaches. However, in March this year, the Supreme Court indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones. In the same month, the government stated that around 16,65,85,421 Aadhaar cars had been linked with PermanentAccountn Number (PAN) as on March 5.

Can Aadhaar be made mandatory? Supreme Court judgement today

The Aadhaar law cannot be struck down just because it can be misused, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.&nbsp;

A five-judge bench of the Supreme court is hearing a bunch of petitions against the Aadhaar Act.&nbsp;

&quot;We find it problematic to strike down a law merely on the possibility of misuse,&quot; Justice Chandrachud said Tuesday.&nbsp;

&quot;So treat Aadhaar as an exception,&quot; replied Kapil Sibal, who is arguing for the petitioners against the Act.&nbsp;

Sibal said that they are not saying there is a possibility of misuse. The &quot;misuse already exists everyday&quot;, Sibal said.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-may-cause-death-of-citizens-civil-rights-lawyer-for-petitioners-29842" target="_blank">&#39;Aadhaar may cause death of civil rights&#39;</a>

&quot;RTI made the citizen more powerful. Will Aadhaar Act make the state ever more powerful?&quot; Sibal asked.&nbsp;

Sibal said that &quot;every technology can be hacked. If somebody says it cannot be hacked, they are lying.&quot;&nbsp;

&quot;There is no technology that cannot be misused,&quot; he said. Even the &quot;telephone is misused&quot;, he added

To which&nbsp;Justice Sikri replied: &quot;Then there should be no inventions at all.&quot;&nbsp;

The Aadhaar Act aims to give every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says that will help streamline the delivery of services to them.&nbsp;

The government has since ordered the furnishing of Aadhaar numbers to avail government benefits, as also the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers.&nbsp;

A number of petitions have been filed against the programme. The Supreme Court had ordered the grouping of the petitions and is hearing them at one go.&nbsp;

The petitioners have argued that the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers is &quot;illegal and unconstitutional&quot;.&nbsp;

There have been reports in recent months of people unable to get government rations -- because they did not have Aadhaar numbers or were unable to furnish them -- dying from starvation. There have also been reports of citizens&#39; <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-issues-virtual-id-against-aadhaar-to-strengthen-data-security-29128" target="_blank">data collected under the Aadhaar programme being sold</a>.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

'We find it problematic to strike down a law merely on the possibility of misuse,' Justice Chandrachud said Tuesday

The Aadhaar law cannot be struck down just because it can be misused, the Supreme Court said Tuesday. A five-judge bench of the Supreme court is hearing a bunch of petitions against the Aadhaar Act. "We find it problematic to strike down a law merely on the possibility of misuse," Justice Chandrachud said Tuesday. "So treat Aadhaar as an exception," replied Kapil Sibal, who is arguing for the petitioners against the Act. Sibal said that they are not saying there is a possibility of misuse. The "misuse already exists everyday", Sibal said. Also read: 'Aadhaar may cause death of civil rights' "RTI made the citizen more powerful. Will Aadhaar Act make the state ever more powerful?" Sibal asked. Sibal said that "every technology can be hacked. If somebody says it cannot be hacked, they are lying." "There is no technology that cannot be misused," he said. Even the "telephone is misused", he added To which Justice Sikri replied: "Then there should be no inventions at all." The Aadhaar Act aims to give every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says that will help streamline the delivery of services to them. The government has since ordered the furnishing of Aadhaar numbers to avail government benefits, as also the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers. A number of petitions have been filed against the programme. The Supreme Court had ordered the grouping of the petitions and is hearing them at one go. The petitioners have argued that the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers is "illegal and unconstitutional". There have been reports in recent months of people unable to get government rations -- because they did not have Aadhaar numbers or were unable to furnish them -- dying from starvation. There have also been reports of citizens' data collected under the Aadhaar programme being sold.

Aadhaar law cannot be struck down just because it can be misused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India today agreed to hear petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act, especially the concern over whether it breaches people&#39;s right to privacy.

The apex court said a five-judge constitution bench will hear the petitions.

ANI reported that the petitions are likely to be heard on July 18.

The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud this morning.

Attorney General KK Venugopal and senior advocate Shyam Divan made an urgent mention before the bench, led by JS Khehar, for the early setting up of a Constitution bench to hear the petitions.

On June 10, the Supreme Court had ruled that from July 1 onward, every person eligible to obtain Aadhar card must quote their Aadhar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for the filing of Income Tax Returns as well as for applications for Permanent Account Number (PAN).

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/preview/article/16906">Govt makes Aadhaar mandatory for opening bank accounts</a>

The Supreme Court of India today agreed to hear petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act, especially the concern over whether it breaches people's right to privacy

The Supreme Court of India today agreed to hear petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act, especially the concern over whether it breaches people's right to privacy. The apex court said a five-judge constitution bench will hear the petitions. ANI reported that the petitions are likely to be heard on July 18. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud this morning. Attorney General KK Venugopal and senior advocate Shyam Divan made an urgent mention before the bench, led by JS Khehar, for the early setting up of a Constitution bench to hear the petitions. On June 10, the Supreme Court had ruled that from July 1 onward, every person eligible to obtain Aadhar card must quote their Aadhar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for the filing of Income Tax Returns as well as for applications for Permanent Account Number (PAN). Also read: Govt makes Aadhaar mandatory for opening bank accounts

Five-judge constitution bench to hear Aadhar petitions on July 18

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) was called upon to decide the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides that every Pan Card holder or Income Tax Assessee has to compulsorily enroll for an Aadhaar Card.&nbsp;

A challenge was laid to this Provision, inter alia on the ground that though the &lsquo;Aadhaar Act&rsquo; prescribes that enrolment to Aadhaar is voluntary as per Section 139AA which, however, adds an element of compulsion.&nbsp; 
It may be recalled that by way of interim Orders, the Supreme Court made it clear that Aadhaar could only be used for certain schemes like MGNREGS, Pensions, Jan Dhan Yojana, Provident Fund, public distribution of food grains and cooking fuels.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>There is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=There is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

The Petitioners, thus, argued that Section 139AA was in violation of the Orders which provided that Aadhaar could not be used for any other purpose.&nbsp;Besides, it was also emphasised that there is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database.&nbsp;The Court, after a careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, held that the Parliament is empowered to make a particular Provision directory in one statute (Aadhaar Act) and compulsory in the other (Income Tax Act). That by itself cannot be a ground to question the competence of the Legislature.&nbsp;

The Court recognised the various advantages of Aadhaar such as (i) benefits of welfare schemes reaching people for whom they were meant; (ii) tackling corruption and black money; (iii) helping enforcement agencies to combat terrorism and other crimes; (iv) weeding out duplicate PANs.On the issue of PAN, the Court observed it has an impact on day to day activities and commercial transactions. Therefore, till the larger aspects of Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. are not decided by the Constitution Bench, it is necessary to impose a partial stay to prevent PANs being made invalid retrospectively.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

It must be respectfully stated that there are a few aspects which the Court does not seem to have fully considered. More importantly, the manner in which Aadhaar is sought to be implemented by the Government is not entirely appropriate either.&nbsp;There is no doubt that the initiative of the present Government is praiseworthy. Its advantages are undeniable. However, despite these apparent advantages, the implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all.&nbsp;

A valid concern is that of possible data leak collected from the individuals. Although the Court in its Judgment, recognises data leak as a real possibility, it only states that this concern needs to be addressed by the Government by ensuring that a proper scheme in this regard is devised at the earliest.&nbsp;Despite this direction, which itself is more of an observation, there is little chance that the Government may do much about it, given the manner in which it has approached the security concern so far. Till date, neither in the Parliament nor in the Court has the Government been able to provide a clear plan on how it would go ahead in tackling this critical issue.&nbsp;It is important to mention that the present Bench of two Judges (Sikri and Bhushan J.J.) was only called upon to look into the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA. The larger issue of whether Aadhaar impinges on the &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo; and &lsquo;Human Dignity&rsquo; is pending before the larger Constitution Bench.&nbsp;

The two Judge Bench had made it clear that it was not going to touch upon the Privacy issue. Had the Petitioners insisted on arguing the right to privacy, the matter would have been &lsquo;tagged&rsquo; with the pending challenge before the Constitution Bench.&nbsp;Instead, the Petitioners decided that they would not be raising the &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo; and would be questioning the validity of Section 139AA, primarily on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.&nbsp; 
In my humble view, whether it is a challenge to the Aadhaar Act itself before the Constitution Bench, or to Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act before the Division Bench, neither of these cases can be decided effectively without touching upon concepts of &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo;, &lsquo;Bodily Integrity&rsquo; and &lsquo;Informational Self-Determination&rsquo;. By giving up arguments of Privacy etc., the Petitioners have unfortunately fought with one hand tied behind their backs. 
It appears that the Petitioners chose to go ahead before the Division Bench by giving up the &lsquo;Privacy&rsquo; argument since the Constitution Bench had not been able to take up the matter for final determination despite various urgent mentionings. In addition, the deadline of &nbsp;July 1, 2017, mentioned in Section 139AA for linking PAN cards and Income Tax Returns was fast approaching.&nbsp;

 
The larger challenge before the Constitution Bench has itself been pending for a very long time now. In the meantime, the Government is going ahead rapidly with the implementation, thereby leading to a possible situation where the entire challenge may become only academic, if not redundant.&nbsp;The Government, in going ahead (however noble or much needed the step may be), without addressing or properly analysing the risks it is clearly putting the cart before the Horse. It cannot be denied that there are certain pressing apprehensions that require immediate attention.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

Such database may create opportunities for people who are vulnerable or perceived as a threat. For instance, a person may be implicated falsely by the Police in serious cases, such as terrorism or murder by simply taking his fingerprints from the database and planting them at the scene of the crime. History has shown us time and again, the propensity of investigative agencies to incriminate people falsely. There is also a huge concern about private or foreign entities being contracted to collect and store data. If the registration machines do not belong to the State, it is extremely difficult for the State to guarantee that such sensitive information will not be leaked or misused.&nbsp; 
It was recently reported that the UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally. With the growing footprint of Aadhaar and the same being made mandatory, such crimes are only likely to rise in the future. Unfortunately, we are not ready to handle mass online attacks, in a space where criminals are getting more sophisticated every day. On the other hand, our Cyber Crime Cells are lagging abysmally behind, with little or no training being imparted to these so-called specialised Police Officers.&nbsp;

One major criticism of the Aadhaar Act is that it came to be passed as a Money Bill, cleverly escaping passage through the Rajya Sabha. It is difficult to understand how &lsquo;Aadhaar&rsquo; was categorised as a Money Bill. In fact, at the time when the Bill was passed on 11.03.2016 by the Lok Sabha, the attendance was merely 73 persons out of a total strength of 543 members. When the Rajya Sabha returned the Bill with suggestions/amendments, they were taken up by the Lok Sabha on 16.03.2016 and none of the amendments/suggestions was accepted. Running down the Parliamentary Institution and Procedures sets a very dangerous trend, which must be avoided at all costs.&nbsp; 
The possibility per se of misuse does not render a Legislation invalid. However, with the nature of this project, the risk is too high to not be addressed in a proper manner. The least that such an ambitious project required was a proper and informed debate in both houses of the Parliament as also, inviting suggestions from all stakeholders, including the public at large.

It is also difficult to understand the extreme urgency to implement Aadhaar when its Constitutionality is yet to be determined by the Court.&nbsp;If there are genuine apprehensions in the minds of the citizens in parting with sensitive information and linking it with various aspects of their daily life, it is the bounden duty of the State to allay such fears.&nbsp;Despite all odds, however, the citizens, ever hopeful and optimistic, place their faith in the government&rsquo;s intention to address such grave issues and not wait for it to turn into a tool for abuse.&nbsp;

As it has been said, &ldquo;our eyes were on the other-world, the stars, the Gods. We didn&rsquo;t keep watch on the world around us. And when we eventually lowered our heads and studied the waters closer to home, it was too late&rdquo;.

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) was called upon to decide the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides that every Pan Card holder or Income Tax Assessee has to compulsorily enroll for an Aadhaar Card. A challenge was laid to this Provision, inter alia on the ground that though the ‘Aadhaar Act’ prescribes that enrolment to Aadhaar is voluntary as per Section 139AA which, however, adds an element of compulsion. It may be recalled that by way of interim Orders, the Supreme Court made it clear that Aadhaar could only be used for certain schemes like MGNREGS, Pensions, Jan Dhan Yojana, Provident Fund, public distribution of food grains and cooking fuels. There is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database × The Petitioners, thus, argued that Section 139AA was in violation of the Orders which provided that Aadhaar could not be used for any other purpose. Besides, it was also emphasised that there is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database. The Court, after a careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, held that the Parliament is empowered to make a particular Provision directory in one statute (Aadhaar Act) and compulsory in the other (Income Tax Act). That by itself cannot be a ground to question the competence of the Legislature. The Court recognised the various advantages of Aadhaar such as (i) benefits of welfare schemes reaching people for whom they were meant; (ii) tackling corruption and black money; (iii) helping enforcement agencies to combat terrorism and other crimes; (iv) weeding out duplicate PANs.On the issue of PAN, the Court observed it has an impact on day to day activities and commercial transactions. Therefore, till the larger aspects of Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. are not decided by the Constitution Bench, it is necessary to impose a partial stay to prevent PANs being made invalid retrospectively. Implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all × It must be respectfully stated that there are a few aspects which the Court does not seem to have fully considered. More importantly, the manner in which Aadhaar is sought to be implemented by the Government is not entirely appropriate either. There is no doubt that the initiative of the present Government is praiseworthy. Its advantages are undeniable. However, despite these apparent advantages, the implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all. A valid concern is that of possible data leak collected from the individuals. Although the Court in its Judgment, recognises data leak as a real possibility, it only states that this concern needs to be addressed by the Government by ensuring that a proper scheme in this regard is devised at the earliest. Despite this direction, which itself is more of an observation, there is little chance that the Government may do much about it, given the manner in which it has approached the security concern so far. Till date, neither in the Parliament nor in the Court has the Government been able to provide a clear plan on how it would go ahead in tackling this critical issue. It is important to mention that the present Bench of two Judges (Sikri and Bhushan J.J.) was only called upon to look into the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA. The larger issue of whether Aadhaar impinges on the ‘Right to Privacy’ and ‘Human Dignity’ is pending before the larger Constitution Bench. The two Judge Bench had made it clear that it was not going to touch upon the Privacy issue. Had the Petitioners insisted on arguing the right to privacy, the matter would have been ‘tagged’ with the pending challenge before the Constitution Bench. Instead, the Petitioners decided that they would not be raising the ‘Right to Privacy’ and would be questioning the validity of Section 139AA, primarily on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In my humble view, whether it is a challenge to the Aadhaar Act itself before the Constitution Bench, or to Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act before the Division Bench, neither of these cases can be decided effectively without touching upon concepts of ‘Right to Privacy’, ‘Bodily Integrity’ and ‘Informational Self-Determination’. By giving up arguments of Privacy etc., the Petitioners have unfortunately fought with one hand tied behind their backs. It appears that the Petitioners chose to go ahead before the Division Bench by giving up the ‘Privacy’ argument since the Constitution Bench had not been able to take up the matter for final determination despite various urgent mentionings. In addition, the deadline of July 1, 2017, mentioned in Section 139AA for linking PAN cards and Income Tax Returns was fast approaching. The larger challenge before the Constitution Bench has itself been pending for a very long time now. In the meantime, the Government is going ahead rapidly with the implementation, thereby leading to a possible situation where the entire challenge may become only academic, if not redundant. The Government, in going ahead (however noble or much needed the step may be), without addressing or properly analysing the risks it is clearly putting the cart before the Horse. It cannot be denied that there are certain pressing apprehensions that require immediate attention. UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally × Such database may create opportunities for people who are vulnerable or perceived as a threat. For instance, a person may be implicated falsely by the Police in serious cases, such as terrorism or murder by simply taking his fingerprints from the database and planting them at the scene of the crime. History has shown us time and again, the propensity of investigative agencies to incriminate people falsely. There is also a huge concern about private or foreign entities being contracted to collect and store data. If the registration machines do not belong to the State, it is extremely difficult for the State to guarantee that such sensitive information will not be leaked or misused. It was recently reported that the UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally. With the growing footprint of Aadhaar and the same being made mandatory, such crimes are only likely to rise in the future. Unfortunately, we are not ready to handle mass online attacks, in a space where criminals are getting more sophisticated every day. On the other hand, our Cyber Crime Cells are lagging abysmally behind, with little or no training being imparted to these so-called specialised Police Officers. One major criticism of the Aadhaar Act is that it came to be passed as a Money Bill, cleverly escaping passage through the Rajya Sabha. It is difficult to understand how ‘Aadhaar’ was categorised as a Money Bill. In fact, at the time when the Bill was passed on 11.03.2016 by the Lok Sabha, the attendance was merely 73 persons out of a total strength of 543 members. When the Rajya Sabha returned the Bill with suggestions/amendments, they were taken up by the Lok Sabha on 16.03.2016 and none of the amendments/suggestions was accepted. Running down the Parliamentary Institution and Procedures sets a very dangerous trend, which must be avoided at all costs. The possibility per se of misuse does not render a Legislation invalid. However, with the nature of this project, the risk is too high to not be addressed in a proper manner. The least that such an ambitious project required was a proper and informed debate in both houses of the Parliament as also, inviting suggestions from all stakeholders, including the public at large. It is also difficult to understand the extreme urgency to implement Aadhaar when its Constitutionality is yet to be determined by the Court. If there are genuine apprehensions in the minds of the citizens in parting with sensitive information and linking it with various aspects of their daily life, it is the bounden duty of the State to allay such fears. Despite all odds, however, the citizens, ever hopeful and optimistic, place their faith in the government’s intention to address such grave issues and not wait for it to turn into a tool for abuse. As it has been said, “our eyes were on the other-world, the stars, the Gods. We didn’t keep watch on the world around us. And when we eventually lowered our heads and studied the waters closer to home, it was too late”.

Aadhaar: Putting the Cart before the Horse

aadhaar-act

Aadhaar Act, News on Aadhaar Act, stories on Aadhaar Act, articles on Aadhaar Act, Aadhaar Act stories at Wion, Aadhaar Act news, Aadhaar Act latest news

aadhaar act