Last week, the honourable Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict on Aadhaar. As a sequel to this, all political parties are claiming victory.&nbsp;

Indeed, the two parties which have been at the helm of power in the Centre have been associated with the introduction of this.

Position under UPA - MNIC and Aadhaar

The UPA government had introduced Aadhaar and they gave it teeth through a non-statutory executive order. In the beginning, it was placed under the Planning Commission. Concurrently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under P Chidambaram had introduced a Multipurpose National Identity Card (MNIC) project. This was being implemented by the office of Registrar General of India, an attached office under the MHA mandated with the decadal census of the country.

Hence, there was a duplication of efforts. Chidambaram had introduced this project as one of the counter-measures in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Hence, capturing the data on citizens was one of the salient concerns of the government. Hence, why were two initiatives which could have been synergised and saved a lot of money to the Exchequer were being introduced and implemented like parallel lines are not known. The government of the day does need to answer this.&nbsp;

Overzealousness in implementing Aadhaar

As a member of the Internal Security team, I had attended a meeting in the Ministry of Information Technology in December 2009. It was a large group from various ministries and regulatory bodies. Basically, the discussion was on the mapping the citizen's identity to trace banking transactions, including money laundering and terror funding which was our mandate.

I had expressed the position on the efficacy of regulation of Western Union, through which money for terror funding was being remitted to their Indian foot soldiers. I, therefore, emphasised on enabling the data-sharing of Aadhaar with the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) for intelligence gathering on terrorism, which was established with hype by P Chidambaram immediately upon taking over as Home Minister. Although my observations were taken on record as per the minutes of the meeting, little effect was given to these observations. Mr RS Sharma, who was pioneering Aadhaar, appeared too excited with setting up a framework and using it with populist schemes like MNREGA, etc. Lateral spinoffs for securing the nation were last on their minds.

NDA and Aadhaar - Legal teeth

After the swearing in of the new regime in 2014, the government gave Aadhaar legal teeth by reinforcing through legislation. The government's emphasis on government-to-citizen transfer of its citizen intended benefits to close the hitherto pitfalls of syphoning of funds was the overriding priority. These are well captured in the bill. Since this was sought to be an instrument for the transfer of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India, it came under the purview of Money Bill as defined in the Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, they brought the bill as a money bill, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

Enabling interagency sharing of data with safeguards 
 
But the issue of sharing of this for intelligence gathering and internal security purposes were sidelined. Although enabling provisions which were incorporated in the Act have been set aside, the government did not make it fail safe itself to sustain the judicial scrutiny. A more comprehensive provision of Sector 57 with adequate safeguards against misuse for purposes other than security or state agenda should have been there. Maybe that would have saved this section in a judicial scrutiny.

Money bill upheld

But what is more salient is the content of the petition itself. In the averments of the petitioner challenged the introduction of the bill as a money bill, then their agitating on the issue of privacy was not sustainable. The government in power does have the mandate and power to bring in instrumentalities to implement its citizen-centric schemes and collect data relating the beneficiary for this purpose and cross-sharing of such data with different agencies of the state. There was no issue of privacy involved in this. 
 
Hence their agitating the issue of privacy again, I believe, was unfounded. Hence the money bill character of Aadhaar was sure to be upheld because by virtue of its objects -&nbsp;it was to establish an instrument of beneficent delivery by the state.

Securing the nation sidestepped

Having said that notwithstanding this, the latent impact of this is that now there will be restrictions of cross-sharing of data even among different state agencies suo moto and covertly. This gets hit. Now attendant rules will be framed to enable a prior permission from the Aadhaar holder, akin to the RTI Act. Let us appreciate that this may adversely affect any initiative regarding suspicious transactions, laundering of money, holding proceeds of crime and terror and terror funding. 
 
The agencies may be constrained. Or such information, even if shared, cannot be arraigned as evidence in criminal prosecutions, unless a prior permission provision is brought out in the rules and the accused citizen accords permission. There also, this permission, if enabled by the government, will again be under scrutiny under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in case it is used in a trial.&nbsp;

This impairing of a criminal investigation, I am sure, was not the agenda hidden under the privacy argument. The petitioner will have to answer this.

(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/overzealous-aadhaar-implementation-a-lost-national-security-opportunity-2144895.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

Last week, the honourable Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict on Aadhaar. As a sequel to this, all political parties are claiming victory. Indeed, the two parties which have been at the helm of power in the Centre have been associated with the introduction of this.

Last week, the honourable Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict on Aadhaar. As a sequel to this, all political parties are claiming victory. Indeed, the two parties which have been at the helm of power in the Centre have been associated with the introduction of this. Position under UPA - MNIC and Aadhaar The UPA government had introduced Aadhaar and they gave it teeth through a non-statutory executive order. In the beginning, it was placed under the Planning Commission. Concurrently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under P Chidambaram had introduced a Multipurpose National Identity Card (MNIC) project. This was being implemented by the office of Registrar General of India, an attached office under the MHA mandated with the decadal census of the country. Hence, there was a duplication of efforts. Chidambaram had introduced this project as one of the counter-measures in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Hence, capturing the data on citizens was one of the salient concerns of the government. Hence, why were two initiatives which could have been synergised and saved a lot of money to the Exchequer were being introduced and implemented like parallel lines are not known. The government of the day does need to answer this. Overzealousness in implementing Aadhaar As a member of the Internal Security team, I had attended a meeting in the Ministry of Information Technology in December 2009. It was a large group from various ministries and regulatory bodies. Basically, the discussion was on the mapping the citizen's identity to trace banking transactions, including money laundering and terror funding which was our mandate. I had expressed the position on the efficacy of regulation of Western Union, through which money for terror funding was being remitted to their Indian foot soldiers. I, therefore, emphasised on enabling the data-sharing of Aadhaar with the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) for intelligence gathering on terrorism, which was established with hype by P Chidambaram immediately upon taking over as Home Minister. Although my observations were taken on record as per the minutes of the meeting, little effect was given to these observations. Mr RS Sharma, who was pioneering Aadhaar, appeared too excited with setting up a framework and using it with populist schemes like MNREGA, etc. Lateral spinoffs for securing the nation were last on their minds. NDA and Aadhaar - Legal teeth After the swearing in of the new regime in 2014, the government gave Aadhaar legal teeth by reinforcing through legislation. The government's emphasis on government-to-citizen transfer of its citizen intended benefits to close the hitherto pitfalls of syphoning of funds was the overriding priority. These are well captured in the bill. Since this was sought to be an instrument for the transfer of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India, it came under the purview of Money Bill as defined in the Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, they brought the bill as a money bill, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Enabling interagency sharing of data with safeguards But the issue of sharing of this for intelligence gathering and internal security purposes were sidelined. Although enabling provisions which were incorporated in the Act have been set aside, the government did not make it fail safe itself to sustain the judicial scrutiny. A more comprehensive provision of Sector 57 with adequate safeguards against misuse for purposes other than security or state agenda should have been there. Maybe that would have saved this section in a judicial scrutiny. Money bill upheld But what is more salient is the content of the petition itself. In the averments of the petitioner challenged the introduction of the bill as a money bill, then their agitating on the issue of privacy was not sustainable. The government in power does have the mandate and power to bring in instrumentalities to implement its citizen-centric schemes and collect data relating the beneficiary for this purpose and cross-sharing of such data with different agencies of the state. There was no issue of privacy involved in this. Hence their agitating the issue of privacy again, I believe, was unfounded. Hence the money bill character of Aadhaar was sure to be upheld because by virtue of its objects - it was to establish an instrument of beneficent delivery by the state. Securing the nation sidestepped Having said that notwithstanding this, the latent impact of this is that now there will be restrictions of cross-sharing of data even among different state agencies suo moto and covertly. This gets hit. Now attendant rules will be framed to enable a prior permission from the Aadhaar holder, akin to the RTI Act. Let us appreciate that this may adversely affect any initiative regarding suspicious transactions, laundering of money, holding proceeds of crime and terror and terror funding. The agencies may be constrained. Or such information, even if shared, cannot be arraigned as evidence in criminal prosecutions, unless a prior permission provision is brought out in the rules and the accused citizen accords permission. There also, this permission, if enabled by the government, will again be under scrutiny under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in case it is used in a trial. This impairing of a criminal investigation, I am sure, was not the agenda hidden under the privacy argument. The petitioner will have to answer this. (This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Overzealous Aadhaar implementation a lost national security opportunity

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-verdict-unique-identification-number-not-mandatory-mobile-connections-bank">Aadhaar scheme</a> and its enabling 2016 law.

"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.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758">Complete list of services exempted from Aadhaar as per Supreme Court directive&nbsp;</a>

The court has struck down the section 57 of Aadhaar Act which allowed sharing of data with private entities.

Calling Aadhaar different from other ID proofs, Supreme court said that there are sufficient safeguards in Aadhaar's structure.&nbsp;

"There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification," said Supreme Court.

"The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society," the Apex court said.

Justice AK Sikri&nbsp;read&nbsp;out the majority judgment in the case. Justice&nbsp;Sikri&nbsp;started his&nbsp;Aadhaar&nbsp;judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best."&nbsp; He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years.

Justice Sikri said that "the Judgment also deals with Proportionality doctrine, compelling State interest and Strict Scrutiny Test." Talking about the judgment, Justice Sikri said that the concept of Human dignity has been enlarged in it.

The apex court also called for certain amendments in Aadhaar Act.&nbsp;

Justice Ashok Bhushan has largely agreed with the majority verdict and also noted that seeking biometric data wasn’t a violation of an individual’s privacy. It is a 4:1 verdict in favour of Aadhaar.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on May 10 reserved the verdict on the matter after a marathon hearing that went on for 38 days, spanning four-and-half months.&nbsp;

The bench, also comprises Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

The 38-day hearing of Aadhaar case is said to be the second longest hearing after Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.&nbsp;

The arguments against Aadhaar began with the assertion that data collection was happening in the absence of a law, that personnel were not qualified to collect and handle sensitive data and that the biometric process itself was unreliable. Fingerprints can be cloned and iris scanners bypassed.

To add to this, it was argued that firstly, the collection of biometric information is itself a violation of the fundamental right to bodily integrity. Further, it was argued that the receipt of government benefits on the conditional waiver of constitutional rights is unconstitutional.

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&nbsp;benami&nbsp;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 on Wednesday pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law. "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. Also read: Complete list of services exempted from Aadhaar as per Supreme Court directive The court has struck down the section 57 of Aadhaar Act which allowed sharing of data with private entities. Calling Aadhaar different from other ID proofs, Supreme court said that there are sufficient safeguards in Aadhaar's structure. "There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification," said Supreme Court. "The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society," the Apex court said. Justice AK Sikri read out the majority judgment in the case. Justice Sikri started his Aadhaar judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best." He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years. Justice Sikri said that "the Judgment also deals with Proportionality doctrine, compelling State interest and Strict Scrutiny Test." Talking about the judgment, Justice Sikri said that the concept of Human dignity has been enlarged in it. The apex court also called for certain amendments in Aadhaar Act. Justice Ashok Bhushan has largely agreed with the majority verdict and also noted that seeking biometric data wasn’t a violation of an individual’s privacy. It is a 4:1 verdict in favour of Aadhaar. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on May 10 reserved the verdict on the matter after a marathon hearing that went on for 38 days, spanning four-and-half months. The bench, also comprises Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The 38-day hearing of Aadhaar case is said to be the second longest hearing after Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973. The arguments against Aadhaar began with the assertion that data collection was happening in the absence of a law, that personnel were not qualified to collect and handle sensitive data and that the biometric process itself was unreliable. Fingerprints can be cloned and iris scanners bypassed. To add to this, it was argued that firstly, the collection of biometric information is itself a violation of the fundamental right to bodily integrity. Further, it was argued that the receipt of government benefits on the conditional waiver of constitutional rights is unconstitutional. 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.

Supreme Court upholds validity of Aadhaar, says can't be insisted in education, banking and telecom

In its verdict on the constitutionality of the Unique Identification Number Aadhaar, the Supreme Court pronounced today, "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies."

"CBSE, UGC and NEET making Aadhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">The verdict</a> brought relief to customers making Aadhaar not mandatory for buying cellular connections and SIM cards. Bank account holders will no longer be required to link the 12-digit identification number to their accounts.

"No mobile company can demand Aadhaar card," the top court ruled on Wednesday.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
No mobile company can demand "Aadhaar card": Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/IRAm5pOUee">pic.twitter.com/IRAm5pOUee</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044829880200908800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

However, it will still be compulsory to link the Permanent account number (PAN) to Aadhaar and for filing IT returns. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Aadhaar card is mandatory for PAN linking: Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/cBiKwJbdjX">pic.twitter.com/cBiKwJbdjX</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044830700376084480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The top court called Aadhaar different from other ID proofs adding that there are sufficient safeguards in Aadhaar's structure.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court strikes down the section 57 of Aadhaar Act; as a result, private companies cannot ask for Aadhaar card <a href="https://t.co/sg9HMax86L">pic.twitter.com/sg9HMax86L</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044833022640558081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification," said Supreme Court.

"The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society," the Apex court said.

In its verdict on the constitutionality of the Unique Identification Number Aadhaar, the Supreme Court pronounced today, "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies.

In its verdict on the constitutionality of the Unique Identification Number Aadhaar, the Supreme Court pronounced today, "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies." "CBSE, UGC and NEET making Aadhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court. The verdict brought relief to customers making Aadhaar not mandatory for buying cellular connections and SIM cards. Bank account holders will no longer be required to link the 12-digit identification number to their accounts. "No mobile company can demand Aadhaar card," the top court ruled on Wednesday. No mobile company can demand "Aadhaar card": Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/IRAm5pOUee — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × However, it will still be compulsory to link the Permanent account number (PAN) to Aadhaar and for filing IT returns. Aadhaar card is mandatory for PAN linking: Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/cBiKwJbdjX — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × The top court called Aadhaar different from other ID proofs adding that there are sufficient safeguards in Aadhaar's structure. Supreme Court strikes down the section 57 of Aadhaar Act; as a result, private companies cannot ask for Aadhaar card pic.twitter.com/sg9HMax86L — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × "There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification," said Supreme Court. "The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society," the Apex court said.

Aadhaar not mandatory for mobile phone connections, bank accounts: Supreme Court 

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

India and the G4 nations voiced concern over the lack of substantive progress in the long-pending Security Council reform, saying it is time to finally initiate text-based negotiations to safeguard the legitimacy and credibility of the powerful UN organ.

The G4 nations, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, have been calling for the reform of the UN Security Council, and support each others' bids for the permanent seats in the top UN body.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj hosted her counterparts Aloysio Nunes Ferreira of Brazil, Heiko Maas of Germany and Taro Kono of Japan at a meeting of the G4 nations held Tuesday at India's Permanent Mission to the UN on the margins of the 73rd session of the General Assembly.

In a joint statement after the meeting, the four nations reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism.

"It was time to finally initiate text-based negotiations during the 73rd session of the General Assembly" in line with the standard operating procedures of the UN General Assembly, the ministers said.

They stressed that adapting the United Nations to the contemporary needs of the 21st century necessarily required reforming the Security Council.

"They stressed the need to safeguard the legitimacy and credibility of this UN organ which deals with international peace and security," the statement said.

The G4 Ministers reaffirmed the need for an early reform of the Council including the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership to enhance its legitimacy, effectiveness and representativeness.

They said that the current composition of the 15-nation Council does not reflect the changed global realities and stressed that the UNSC reform is essential to address today's complex challenges.

The ministers reiterated their support for Africa's representation in both categories of membership in a reformed and expanded Security Council.

"As aspiring new permanent members of a reformed Council, the ministers reiterated their commitment to work to strengthen the functioning of the UN and the global multilateral order as well as their support for each other's candidatures," it said.

Reviewing progress on the UNSC reform at the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), they said substantial progress had not yet been achieved even though next year would mark 40 years since the inscription of the item 'Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the

Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council' on the agenda of the General Assembly.

"Despite an overwhelming majority of UN member states supporting Security Council reform, the IGN has not produced substantive progress over the 10 years since its launch in 2009," the statement said adding that the ministers emphasised the need to revitalise process of the Security Council reform.

The four leaders welcomed the commitment of President of the 73rd session of the General Assembly Mar?a Fernanda Espinosa Garces to the reform process and expressed their readiness to extend full support to her with a view to launching negotiations based on a text comprising all positions and proposals by the member states.

The ministers agreed that all aspects of the comprehensive reform had been thoroughly discussed several times in the IGN and the General Assembly.

They reiterated their commitment to working with other member states to realise the shared vision of the overwhelming majority supporting the initiation of text-based negotiations in a democratic and transparent manner.

The G4 will intensify dialogue with other member states, especially like-minded countries and groups to achieve meaningful progress in the upcoming IGN session, the four ministers said, adding that they are determined to redouble their efforts towards securing concrete outcomes on the UNSC reform during the current session of the General Assembly.

India and the G4 nations voiced concern over the lack of substantive progress in the long-pending Security Council reform, saying it is time to finally initiate text-based negotiations to safeguard the legitimacy and credibility of the powerful UN organ.

India and the G4 nations voiced concern over the lack of substantive progress in the long-pending Security Council reform, saying it is time to finally initiate text-based negotiations to safeguard the legitimacy and credibility of the powerful UN organ. The G4 nations, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, have been calling for the reform of the UN Security Council, and support each others' bids for the permanent seats in the top UN body. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj hosted her counterparts Aloysio Nunes Ferreira of Brazil, Heiko Maas of Germany and Taro Kono of Japan at a meeting of the G4 nations held Tuesday at India's Permanent Mission to the UN on the margins of the 73rd session of the General Assembly. In a joint statement after the meeting, the four nations reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism. "It was time to finally initiate text-based negotiations during the 73rd session of the General Assembly" in line with the standard operating procedures of the UN General Assembly, the ministers said. They stressed that adapting the United Nations to the contemporary needs of the 21st century necessarily required reforming the Security Council. "They stressed the need to safeguard the legitimacy and credibility of this UN organ which deals with international peace and security," the statement said. The G4 Ministers reaffirmed the need for an early reform of the Council including the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership to enhance its legitimacy, effectiveness and representativeness. They said that the current composition of the 15-nation Council does not reflect the changed global realities and stressed that the UNSC reform is essential to address today's complex challenges. The ministers reiterated their support for Africa's representation in both categories of membership in a reformed and expanded Security Council. "As aspiring new permanent members of a reformed Council, the ministers reiterated their commitment to work to strengthen the functioning of the UN and the global multilateral order as well as their support for each other's candidatures," it said. Reviewing progress on the UNSC reform at the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), they said substantial progress had not yet been achieved even though next year would mark 40 years since the inscription of the item 'Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council' on the agenda of the General Assembly. "Despite an overwhelming majority of UN member states supporting Security Council reform, the IGN has not produced substantive progress over the 10 years since its launch in 2009," the statement said adding that the ministers emphasised the need to revitalise process of the Security Council reform. The four leaders welcomed the commitment of President of the 73rd session of the General Assembly Mar?a Fernanda Espinosa Garces to the reform process and expressed their readiness to extend full support to her with a view to launching negotiations based on a text comprising all positions and proposals by the member states. The ministers agreed that all aspects of the comprehensive reform had been thoroughly discussed several times in the IGN and the General Assembly. They reiterated their commitment to working with other member states to realise the shared vision of the overwhelming majority supporting the initiation of text-based negotiations in a democratic and transparent manner. The G4 will intensify dialogue with other member states, especially like-minded countries and groups to achieve meaningful progress in the upcoming IGN session, the four ministers said, adding that they are determined to redouble their efforts towards securing concrete outcomes on the UNSC reform during the current session of the General Assembly.

India, G4 nations voice concern over lack of progress in long-pending UN Security Council reform

Congress president Rahul Gandhi thanked the Supreme Court for its verdict on the Aadhaar Act on Wednesday and said that it was an "instrument"&nbsp;for his party but a tool of "oppression and surveillance"&nbsp;for the BJP.

"For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment.

"For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance.

"Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting India," Rahul Gandhi said on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. 
 
For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. 
 
Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting 🇮🇳. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AadhaarVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AadhaarVerdict</a>
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi/status/1044891845782896640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme.

The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," the ruling noted.&nbsp;

The verdict also rendered the unique identification number not mandatory for new mobile connections and banking services, however, it will still be required for Personal Account Number (PAN) and for filing ITR.&nbsp;

Congress president Rahul Gandhi thanked the Supreme Court for its verdict on the Aadhaar Act on Wednesday and said that it was an "instrument" for his party but a tool of "oppression and surveillance" for the BJP.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi thanked the Supreme Court for its verdict on the Aadhaar Act on Wednesday and said that it was an "instrument" for his party but a tool of "oppression and surveillance" for the BJP. "For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. "For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. "Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting India," Rahul Gandhi said on Twitter. For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting 🇮🇳. #AadhaarVerdict — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) September 26, 2018 × The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," the ruling noted. The verdict also rendered the unique identification number not mandatory for new mobile connections and banking services, however, it will still be required for Personal Account Number (PAN) and for filing ITR.

Rahul thanks Supreme Court for supporting 'Congress's vision' on Aadhaar

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

The UIDAI Wednesday termed the Supreme Court judgement, which upheld Aadhaar as a constitutionally valid scheme, as a victory.

The Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey told&nbsp;that the 4:1 apex court judgement announced Wednesday is in favour of Aadhaar.

"It is 4:1 judgement in favour of Aadhaar. The court has declared Aadhaar constitutionally valid. It is a money bill. It can be used for pan card. It empowers poor and marginalised section. Aadhaar can be used for subsidies and government schemes so that there is no leakage of government funds. It can be used for income tax so that tax evasion and black money can be curbed," Pandey said.

The Supreme Court Wednesday declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as Constitutionally valid. The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said Aadhaar is meant to help benefits reach the marginalised sections of the society and takes into account the dignity of people not only from personal but also from community point of view.

Justice Sikri struck down Section 57 of Aadhaar Act permitting private entities to avail Aadhaar data and ruled that Aadhaar authentication data cannot be stored for more than six months.

Reacting to the court order of annulling section 57, Pandey said: "The court has restricted private usage (of Aadhaar) without any backing of Law. Same has been suggested by Justice Shrikrishna Committee".

The top court said Aadhaar is serving much bigger public interest and Aadhaar means unique and it is better to be unique than being best. There are three sets of judgements being pronounced on the issue.

The first of the three verdicts was pronounced by Justice A K Sikri, who wrote the judgement himself, CJI and Justice A M Khanwilkar. Justice Sikri said robust data protection regime has to be brought in place as early as possible.

The Supreme Court added that CBSE, NEET, UGC cannot make Aadhaar mandatory and it is not compulsory for school admissions. The apex court also said the linking of Aadhaar for opening of bank accounts and for mobile connections is not mandatory.

Cyber Security expert and Indian Infosec Consortium CEO Jiten Jain said that the custodians and interpreters of constitution have delivered a wonderful judgement on Aadhaar, which has taken into account privacy concerns of all stakeholder specially citizens.

"I am happy that Aadhar Act has been upheld and private sector entities have been virtually barred from collecting or linking Aadhar to any services they provide. (The) Supreme court has made it clear that governments can use Aadhaar to serve society but cannot use it to become dangerous master," Jain said.&nbsp;

The UIDAI Wednesday termed the Supreme Court judgement, which upheld Aadhaar as a constitutionally valid scheme, as a victory. The Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey told that the 4:1 apex court judgement announced Wednesday is in favour of Aadhaar.

The UIDAI Wednesday termed the Supreme Court judgement, which upheld Aadhaar as a constitutionally valid scheme, as a victory. The Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey told that the 4:1 apex court judgement announced Wednesday is in favour of Aadhaar. "It is 4:1 judgement in favour of Aadhaar. The court has declared Aadhaar constitutionally valid. It is a money bill. It can be used for pan card. It empowers poor and marginalised section. Aadhaar can be used for subsidies and government schemes so that there is no leakage of government funds. It can be used for income tax so that tax evasion and black money can be curbed," Pandey said. The Supreme Court Wednesday declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as Constitutionally valid. The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said Aadhaar is meant to help benefits reach the marginalised sections of the society and takes into account the dignity of people not only from personal but also from community point of view. Justice Sikri struck down Section 57 of Aadhaar Act permitting private entities to avail Aadhaar data and ruled that Aadhaar authentication data cannot be stored for more than six months. Reacting to the court order of annulling section 57, Pandey said: "The court has restricted private usage (of Aadhaar) without any backing of Law. Same has been suggested by Justice Shrikrishna Committee". The top court said Aadhaar is serving much bigger public interest and Aadhaar means unique and it is better to be unique than being best. There are three sets of judgements being pronounced on the issue. The first of the three verdicts was pronounced by Justice A K Sikri, who wrote the judgement himself, CJI and Justice A M Khanwilkar. Justice Sikri said robust data protection regime has to be brought in place as early as possible. The Supreme Court added that CBSE, NEET, UGC cannot make Aadhaar mandatory and it is not compulsory for school admissions. The apex court also said the linking of Aadhaar for opening of bank accounts and for mobile connections is not mandatory. Cyber Security expert and Indian Infosec Consortium CEO Jiten Jain said that the custodians and interpreters of constitution have delivered a wonderful judgement on Aadhaar, which has taken into account privacy concerns of all stakeholder specially citizens. "I am happy that Aadhar Act has been upheld and private sector entities have been virtually barred from collecting or linking Aadhar to any services they provide. (The) Supreme court has made it clear that governments can use Aadhaar to serve society but cannot use it to become dangerous master," Jain said.

Aadhaar verdict: UIDAI sees victory in Supreme Court judgement, says private usage restricted

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">Aadhaar Act</a> could not have been passed as Money Bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down, Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud said Wednesday.

Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, wrote a separate judgement saying he had expressed some views different from that of the verdict pronounced by Justice A K Sikri.

Bypassing the Rajya Sabha to pass the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758"> Aadhaar Act</a> amounted to subterfuge and the law was liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 110 of the Constitution, he ruled.

Article 110 has specific grounds for Money Bill and the Aadhaar law went beyond this, Justice Chandrachud said, adding that in the current form, the Act cannot be held to be constitutional.

He observed that the enactment of the Act does not save the Centre's Aadhaar scheme.

Noting that mobile phone has become an important feature of life and its seeding with Aadhaar posed a grave threat to privacy, liberty, autonomy, he favoured deletion of consumers' Aadhaar data by the mobile service providers.

Maintaining that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Rules proceeded on assumption that every bank account holder is a money launderer, he said the assumption that every individual who opens a bank account is a potential terrorist or a launderer is "draconian", he said.

Justice Chandrachud also said collection of data may lead to individual profiling of citizens.

He said the Aadhaar programme violated informational privacy, self-determination and data protection. It has been admitted by UIDAI that it stores vital data which is violative of right to privacy, he added.

This data was vulnerable to be misused by third party and private vendors, and that too, without the consent of an individual, Justice Chandrachud maintained and said the Aadhaar project has failed to remedy the flaws in its design, leading to exclusion.

Allowing private players to use Aadhaar will lead to profiling, which could be used to ascertain the political views of citizens, the judge, who pronounced his separate verdict, said.

He also held that denial of social welfare measures was violation of fundamental rights of citizens.

There is no institutional responsibility of the UIDAI to protect the data of citizens, he said, adding that there was absence of a regulatory mechanism to provide robust data protection.

However, he said it was now impossible to live in India without Aadhaar but it was violative of Article 14.

If Aadhaar is seeded with every database, then there is chance of infringement of right to privacy, he said.

Justice Chandrachud said while Parliament possesses the right to make a law, the absence of protection leads to violation of various rights.

The Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as Money Bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down, Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud said Wednesday.

The Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as Money Bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down, Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud said Wednesday. Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, wrote a separate judgement saying he had expressed some views different from that of the verdict pronounced by Justice A K Sikri. Bypassing the Rajya Sabha to pass the Aadhaar Act amounted to subterfuge and the law was liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 110 of the Constitution, he ruled. Article 110 has specific grounds for Money Bill and the Aadhaar law went beyond this, Justice Chandrachud said, adding that in the current form, the Act cannot be held to be constitutional. He observed that the enactment of the Act does not save the Centre's Aadhaar scheme. Noting that mobile phone has become an important feature of life and its seeding with Aadhaar posed a grave threat to privacy, liberty, autonomy, he favoured deletion of consumers' Aadhaar data by the mobile service providers. Maintaining that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Rules proceeded on assumption that every bank account holder is a money launderer, he said the assumption that every individual who opens a bank account is a potential terrorist or a launderer is "draconian", he said. Justice Chandrachud also said collection of data may lead to individual profiling of citizens. He said the Aadhaar programme violated informational privacy, self-determination and data protection. It has been admitted by UIDAI that it stores vital data which is violative of right to privacy, he added. This data was vulnerable to be misused by third party and private vendors, and that too, without the consent of an individual, Justice Chandrachud maintained and said the Aadhaar project has failed to remedy the flaws in its design, leading to exclusion. Allowing private players to use Aadhaar will lead to profiling, which could be used to ascertain the political views of citizens, the judge, who pronounced his separate verdict, said. He also held that denial of social welfare measures was violation of fundamental rights of citizens. There is no institutional responsibility of the UIDAI to protect the data of citizens, he said, adding that there was absence of a regulatory mechanism to provide robust data protection. However, he said it was now impossible to live in India without Aadhaar but it was violative of Article 14. If Aadhaar is seeded with every database, then there is chance of infringement of right to privacy, he said. Justice Chandrachud said while Parliament possesses the right to make a law, the absence of protection leads to violation of various rights.

Aadhaar law couldn't have been passed as Money Bill, amounts to fraud on Constitution: Justice Chandrachud

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 of India on Wednesday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme</a>. The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," the ruling noted.&nbsp;

The verdict also rendered the unique identification number not mandatory for new mobile connections and banking services, however, it will still be required for Personal Account Number (PAN) and for filing ITR.&nbsp;

Here's a complete list of services which will no longer require a citizen to produce Aadhaar details:

<ul>
	<li>School admissions</li>
	<li>Opening bank accounts</li>
	<li>Mobile connections</li>
	<li>CBSE, NEET and UGC exams</li>
</ul>

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of IT returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking of Aadhaar for mobile connections.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aadhaar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Aadhaar</a> verdict: Aadhaar mandatory for PAN linking; not compulsory for UGC, NEET &amp; CBSE exams &amp; school admissions. Aadhaar not needed for opening a bank a/c, no mobile company can demand Aadhaar, private companies can't seek Aadhaar data <a href="https://t.co/pNkkfthB6d">pic.twitter.com/pNkkfthB6d</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044838112394956800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

It would also not be mandatory for school admissions, as also for the examinations conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Examination, National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for medical entrance and the University Grants Commission.

Justice AK Sikri read out the majority judgment in the case. Justice Sikri started his Aadhaar judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best." &nbsp;He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years.

Justice Sikri said that "the Judgment also deals with Proportionality doctrine, compelling State interest and Strict Scrutiny Test." Talking about the judgment, Justice Sikri said that the concept of Human dignity has been enlarged in it.

Justice Chandrachud&nbsp;said that the Aadhaar project, "failed to remedy the flaws in its design and has led to exclusion."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court on Aadhaar matter: Justice Chandrachud says, "Aadhaar violates the right to privacy as it could possibly lead to profiling of persons and voters" <a href="https://t.co/JLHZkeguRj">pic.twitter.com/JLHZkeguRj</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044837655127760897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

There is no institutional responsibility of UIDAI to protect data of citizens, said Justice Chandrachud.

"Data vulnerable to misuse by any third party, private vendors, that too without the consent of an individual," he added.&nbsp;

The bench also struck down the national security exception under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," the ruling noted. The verdict also rendered the unique identification number not mandatory for new mobile connections and banking services, however, it will still be required for Personal Account Number (PAN) and for filing ITR. Here's a complete list of services which will no longer require a citizen to produce Aadhaar details: School admissions Opening bank accounts Mobile connections CBSE, NEET and UGC exams A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of IT returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking of Aadhaar for mobile connections. #Aadhaar verdict: Aadhaar mandatory for PAN linking; not compulsory for UGC, NEET & CBSE exams & school admissions. Aadhaar not needed for opening a bank a/c, no mobile company can demand Aadhaar, private companies can't seek Aadhaar data pic.twitter.com/pNkkfthB6d — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × It would also not be mandatory for school admissions, as also for the examinations conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Examination, National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for medical entrance and the University Grants Commission. Justice AK Sikri read out the majority judgment in the case. Justice Sikri started his Aadhaar judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best." He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years. Justice Sikri said that "the Judgment also deals with Proportionality doctrine, compelling State interest and Strict Scrutiny Test." Talking about the judgment, Justice Sikri said that the concept of Human dignity has been enlarged in it. Justice Chandrachud said that the Aadhaar project, "failed to remedy the flaws in its design and has led to exclusion." Supreme Court on Aadhaar matter: Justice Chandrachud says, "Aadhaar violates the right to privacy as it could possibly lead to profiling of persons and voters" pic.twitter.com/JLHZkeguRj — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × There is no institutional responsibility of UIDAI to protect data of citizens, said Justice Chandrachud. "Data vulnerable to misuse by any third party, private vendors, that too without the consent of an individual," he added. The bench also struck down the national security exception under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act. (With inputs from PTI)

Complete list of services exempted from Aadhaar as per Supreme Court directive 

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 Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed all the parties concerned to file their written submissions to put forth their case.

The judgement was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days spanning four months.

A battery of lawyers including Attorney General K K Venugopal, who represented the Centre and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Shyam Divan, Arvind Datar, Rakesh Dwivedi had appeared for various parties.

The constitution bench also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

During the arguments spread over four months, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy and other petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar.

The court had also not agreed with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India.&nbsp;

The judgement was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days over four months

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed all the parties concerned to file their written submissions to put forth their case. The judgement was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days spanning four months. A battery of lawyers including Attorney General K K Venugopal, who represented the Centre and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Shyam Divan, Arvind Datar, Rakesh Dwivedi had appeared for various parties. The constitution bench also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. During the arguments spread over four months, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it. However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users. Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy and other petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar. The court had also not agreed with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Supreme Court reserves judgement on pleas challenging constitutional validity of Aadhaar

Supreme Court judge, Justice DY Chandrachud, the son of late Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, on Wednesday recalled a personal experience during the hearing on the Aadhaar issue that his mother, who was suffering for Alzheimer's disease, had faced difficulty in authentication to get pension.

Justice Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law of 2016.

During the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, said Aadhaar authentication failures could create problems for those in need and some solution has to be found to address the issue.

<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>So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems,' Justice Chandrachud said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get benefits due to authentication failures</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=So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems,' Justice Chandrachud said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get benefits due to authentication failures" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Recalling his experience, Justice Chandrachud said "my mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was entitled to family pension being the wife of a former Chief Justice of India (late Justice Y V Chandrachud).

"She had to give a thumb impression for authentication. I recall, every month the bank manager or his representative would come home and affix her thumb print on certain documents and only then could she get the pension", Justice Chandrachud said.

"So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems," he said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get the benefits due to authentication failures.

The top court judge was responding to the arguments of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for former High Court judge Justice (Retd) K S Puttaswamy, who said a 90-year-old woman suffering from various ailments is being threatened that her bank account could be closed for non-authentication by Aadhaar.

Divan said that through that bank account, she was getting her pension and she uses that money for her treatment as she has no one else to look after her.

"There are numerous cases where the Aadhaar authentication failures of the elderly, people suffering from any disease or physical disability, leads to denial of benefits to those otherwise entitled to it," Diwan said.

He said in many villages, young people have now migrated to cities or nearby towns and only the elderly residing there were dependent on their pension or other grants. But due to Aadhaar authentication failure, they were not getting the benefits.

Divan sought to assail a World Bank report which had praised the Aadhaar project and which was relied upon by the government to bolster its case for the 12-digit unique identification number. He said the World Bank had partnered with a private entity for preparing the report titled 'Identification for Development'.

Divan claimed that the same private entity was also the company with which UIDAI had partnered to facilitate Aadhaar.

He said there were 144 notifications issued by various ministries and departments of the government which covered 252 schemes.

The senior lawyer concluded his rejoinder arguments saying that essential government schemes that apply to children or relate to citizen's rehabilitation, food, health and nutrition, should be excluded from the requirement of Aadhaar authentication.

The hearing remained inconclusive on Wednesday and will continue on Thursday.

On May 3, the centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

The petitioners had referred to the technical experts' views on the technical aspect of the Aadhaar architecture and said that a real time surveillance of citizens was possible.

For the first time in a democracy, something like CIDR has been implemented and the apex court has to balance the human rights and new technologies that is capable of being misused, they had said.

Earlier, the court also did not agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Justice DY Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar programme's constitutional validity

Supreme Court judge, Justice DY Chandrachud, the son of late Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, on Wednesday recalled a personal experience during the hearing on the Aadhaar issue that his mother, who was suffering for Alzheimer's disease, had faced difficulty in authentication to get pension. Justice Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law of 2016. During the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, said Aadhaar authentication failures could create problems for those in need and some solution has to be found to address the issue. So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems,' Justice Chandrachud said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get benefits due to authentication failures × Recalling his experience, Justice Chandrachud said "my mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was entitled to family pension being the wife of a former Chief Justice of India (late Justice Y V Chandrachud). "She had to give a thumb impression for authentication. I recall, every month the bank manager or his representative would come home and affix her thumb print on certain documents and only then could she get the pension", Justice Chandrachud said. "So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems," he said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get the benefits due to authentication failures. The top court judge was responding to the arguments of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for former High Court judge Justice (Retd) K S Puttaswamy, who said a 90-year-old woman suffering from various ailments is being threatened that her bank account could be closed for non-authentication by Aadhaar. Divan said that through that bank account, she was getting her pension and she uses that money for her treatment as she has no one else to look after her. "There are numerous cases where the Aadhaar authentication failures of the elderly, people suffering from any disease or physical disability, leads to denial of benefits to those otherwise entitled to it," Diwan said. He said in many villages, young people have now migrated to cities or nearby towns and only the elderly residing there were dependent on their pension or other grants. But due to Aadhaar authentication failure, they were not getting the benefits. Divan sought to assail a World Bank report which had praised the Aadhaar project and which was relied upon by the government to bolster its case for the 12-digit unique identification number. He said the World Bank had partnered with a private entity for preparing the report titled 'Identification for Development'. Divan claimed that the same private entity was also the company with which UIDAI had partnered to facilitate Aadhaar. He said there were 144 notifications issued by various ministries and departments of the government which covered 252 schemes. The senior lawyer concluded his rejoinder arguments saying that essential government schemes that apply to children or relate to citizen's rehabilitation, food, health and nutrition, should be excluded from the requirement of Aadhaar authentication. The hearing remained inconclusive on Wednesday and will continue on Thursday. On May 3, the centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it. However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users. The petitioners had referred to the technical experts' views on the technical aspect of the Aadhaar architecture and said that a real time surveillance of citizens was possible. For the first time in a democracy, something like CIDR has been implemented and the apex court has to balance the human rights and new technologies that is capable of being misused, they had said. Earlier, the court also did not agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Citing mother's example, Supreme Court judge says Aadhaar 'serious issue'

India's Aadhaar technology does not pose any privacy issue and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded the World Bank to take this approach to other countries as it is worth emulating, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said.

The 62-year-old multi-billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist said Nandan Nilekani, Infosys founder who is considered as the chief architect of Aadhaar, was consulting and helping the World Bank on the project.

Asked if India's Aadhaar technology is worth emulating by other countries, he replied, "Yes".

"The benefits of that (basic ID -- Aadhaar) are very high," he told PTI.&nbsp;

More than a billion people in India have enrolled in Aadhaar, the world's largest biometric ID system.

"Yes, countries should adopt that approach because the quality of governance has a lot to do with how quickly countries are able to grow their economy and empower their people," Gates said in response to a question.

"We have funded the World Bank to take this Aadhaar approach to other countries," he said.&nbsp; 
It is believed that several countries, including some from India's neighbourhood, have approached New Delhi for assistance in this matter.

"Aadhaar in itself doesn't pose any privacy issue because it's just a bio ID verification scheme," Gates, the head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said when asked about the concerns about privacy issues raised by certain quarters in India.

"The individual applications that use Aadhaar, you have to look and see what's been stored and who has access to that information. And so, application by application, you have to make sure that's well managed. In the case of the financial bank account I think it's handled very well," he said.

"(It uses) Aadhar to set up the accounts so that you can both get your cell phone and get your bank account," he added.

Observing that Aadhaar was started before Prime Minister Narendra Modi came into office, Gates said that it was very much to his credit that he was willing to embrace it.

"I'm both good friend and an admirer of Nandan Nilekani and some of the initiatives of digitisation efforts that can help with education that can help with governance," he said.&nbsp;

In his lecture on 'Technology for Transformation' organised by NITI Aayog on November 2016, Gates had said that Aadhaar is something that had never been done by any government before, not even in a rich country.&nbsp;

Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number for Indians, based on their biometric and demographic data. The data is collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a statutory authority established in January 2009 by the Government of India. PTI

The Microsoft founder added that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded the World Bank to take Aadhaar to other countries since it is worth emulating

India's Aadhaar technology does not pose any privacy issue and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded the World Bank to take this approach to other countries as it is worth emulating, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said. The 62-year-old multi-billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist said Nandan Nilekani, Infosys founder who is considered as the chief architect of Aadhaar, was consulting and helping the World Bank on the project. Asked if India's Aadhaar technology is worth emulating by other countries, he replied, "Yes". "The benefits of that (basic ID -- Aadhaar) are very high," he told PTI. More than a billion people in India have enrolled in Aadhaar, the world's largest biometric ID system. "Yes, countries should adopt that approach because the quality of governance has a lot to do with how quickly countries are able to grow their economy and empower their people," Gates said in response to a question. "We have funded the World Bank to take this Aadhaar approach to other countries," he said. It is believed that several countries, including some from India's neighbourhood, have approached New Delhi for assistance in this matter. "Aadhaar in itself doesn't pose any privacy issue because it's just a bio ID verification scheme," Gates, the head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said when asked about the concerns about privacy issues raised by certain quarters in India. "The individual applications that use Aadhaar, you have to look and see what's been stored and who has access to that information. And so, application by application, you have to make sure that's well managed. In the case of the financial bank account I think it's handled very well," he said. "(It uses) Aadhar to set up the accounts so that you can both get your cell phone and get your bank account," he added. Observing that Aadhaar was started before Prime Minister Narendra Modi came into office, Gates said that it was very much to his credit that he was willing to embrace it. "I'm both good friend and an admirer of Nandan Nilekani and some of the initiatives of digitisation efforts that can help with education that can help with governance," he said. In his lecture on 'Technology for Transformation' organised by NITI Aayog on November 2016, Gates had said that Aadhaar is something that had never been done by any government before, not even in a rich country. Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number for Indians, based on their biometric and demographic data. The data is collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a statutory authority established in January 2009 by the Government of India. PTI

Aadhaar does not pose any privacy issue: Bill Gates

A couple in Maharashtra has enrolled their newborn daughter for Aadhaar, the unique 12-digit number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). What's special about this is that Saachi's parents got her enrolled in just 1.48 minutes after her birth.

This record of sorts was made possible because Saachi's father was keen to get her enrolled as soon as she is born.

An Aadhaar card carries biometric details of a person, like fingerprints, iris scan record etc.

According to UIDAI, no biometric details are captured for children below five years. Their Aadhaar is processed on the basis of demographic information and facial photograph linked with the UID of their parents. These children will need to be re-enrolled with biometrics of 10 fingers, iris and facial photograph, when they turn five.

The biometric details of children are updated once they turn 15, the UIDAI says. Intimation to this effect will be mentioned in the original Aadhaar letter.

An Aadhaar card carries biometric details of a person, like fingerprints, iris scan record etc.

A couple in Maharashtra has enrolled their newborn daughter for Aadhaar, the unique 12-digit number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). What's special about this is that Saachi's parents got her enrolled in just 1.48 minutes after her birth. This record of sorts was made possible because Saachi's father was keen to get her enrolled as soon as she is born. An Aadhaar card carries biometric details of a person, like fingerprints, iris scan record etc. According to UIDAI, no biometric details are captured for children below five years. Their Aadhaar is processed on the basis of demographic information and facial photograph linked with the UID of their parents. These children will need to be re-enrolled with biometrics of 10 fingers, iris and facial photograph, when they turn five. The biometric details of children are updated once they turn 15, the UIDAI says. Intimation to this effect will be mentioned in the original Aadhaar letter.

Maharashtra girl gets enrolled in Aadhaar within 2 minutes of birth

UIDAI's counsel, Rakesh Dwivedi's recent statements state that a large amount of sensitive, personal data was being collected by foreign companies but they were not able to breach the Aadhaar database.&nbsp;

Dwivedi, on April 17, had thrown an open challenge to the petitioners to hack his personal data via the Aadhaar database. He also communicated that the data stored in the Aadhaar database was absolutely secure and cannot be manipulated using the internet.&nbsp;

The senior counsel, on Wednesday, informed the Supreme Court about an anonymous person taking up the challenge to elicit his personal details using a website. Dwivedi informed having received a two-pager document with personal details of him and his family members.

He noted that the list of information did not contain any information linked to him or his family members' Aadhaar database.&nbsp;

Dwivedi explained that the list of his personal details as well as information collection about his family members was purely collated with the help Google and data available in the public domain. He went on to state that the Aadhaar database is not connected to the internet which makes it difficult to process, analyse, hack, or manipulate.&nbsp;

Aadhaar database is immune to unscrupulous activities, it cannot be used for surveillance or for commercial exploitation. Dwivedi argued.&nbsp;

The apex court, in its interim order, had said Aadhaar will not be required for availing various services like mobile and banking till it decides the petitions challenging the scheme.

Earlier, Dwivedi was labouring on the point that Aadhaar authentication was not required for every transaction and the fear of aggregation and collation of metadata was unfounded.

"For example, in case of PAN cards, it is once in a lifetime. For the sims, it is done only at the time of obtaining it. So, where is this multiplication of authentication from morning till evening coming from," Dwivedi said, adding, "realistically speaking, there is no trail of authentication from morning to evening. No real-time tracking is done" 
&nbsp;

Dwivedi, on April 17, had thrown an open challenge to the petitioners to hack his personal data via the Aadhaar database

UIDAI's counsel, Rakesh Dwivedi's recent statements state that a large amount of sensitive, personal data was being collected by foreign companies but they were not able to breach the Aadhaar database. Dwivedi, on April 17, had thrown an open challenge to the petitioners to hack his personal data via the Aadhaar database. He also communicated that the data stored in the Aadhaar database was absolutely secure and cannot be manipulated using the internet. The senior counsel, on Wednesday, informed the Supreme Court about an anonymous person taking up the challenge to elicit his personal details using a website. Dwivedi informed having received a two-pager document with personal details of him and his family members. He noted that the list of information did not contain any information linked to him or his family members' Aadhaar database. Dwivedi explained that the list of his personal details as well as information collection about his family members was purely collated with the help Google and data available in the public domain. He went on to state that the Aadhaar database is not connected to the internet which makes it difficult to process, analyse, hack, or manipulate. Aadhaar database is immune to unscrupulous activities, it cannot be used for surveillance or for commercial exploitation. Dwivedi argued. The apex court, in its interim order, had said Aadhaar will not be required for availing various services like mobile and banking till it decides the petitions challenging the scheme. Earlier, Dwivedi was labouring on the point that Aadhaar authentication was not required for every transaction and the fear of aggregation and collation of metadata was unfounded. "For example, in case of PAN cards, it is once in a lifetime. For the sims, it is done only at the time of obtaining it. So, where is this multiplication of authentication from morning till evening coming from," Dwivedi said, adding, "realistically speaking, there is no trail of authentication from morning to evening. No real-time tracking is done"

Stranger got personal info but not Aadhaar details of me, wife, children: UIDAI counsel

The Supreme Court yesterday said it was not sure whether bringing people "face to face" with authorities through Aadhaar was the best model as the State should reach them to accord the benefits of the welfare schemes.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, was told by the counsel for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that the 12 digit national identifier brought the citizens face to face with the service providers for getting the benefits.

"We are not sure if that is the best model. The individual should not be a supplicant. The State should go to him and give him benefits," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.&nbsp

The bench observed that the UIDAI says Aadhaar is a means for identification, but the "only caveat to that is that there should be no exclusion".

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for UIDAI and the Gujarat government, said the development was necessary to ensure that people are freed from poverty.

Liberating people from poverty is at one end of the spectrum and the right to privacy is on the other, the bench observed.

The UIDAI referred to social ills like manual scavenging and prostitution and said that despite laws, these evils were rampant in the society and the apex court should strike a balance while dealing with the competing fundamental rights of citizens.

Referring to apex court judgements, the senior lawyer said it has been held that to save the freedom of speech and expression, the right to reputation of a citizen under Article 21 cannot be crucified.

The apex court, besides being the protector of fundamental rights, is also a "balancing wheel" to ensure that competing fundamentals co-exist.

Mr Dwivedi then referred to a verdict by which an HIV positive rape victim was denied the permission to abort the foetus after a doctors' panel gave the report that it could be fatal for the woman.

"The court balanced the rights in the case where fundamental right to life was involved," he said, adding that in the present matter, the issue merely pertained to identification.

"What is being done under section 7 of the Aadhaar Act covers human rights of a lot of people of our country. This court should act as a sentinel to ensure that right to privacy is balanced with all the other rights under Article 21 that Aadhaar covers," Mr Dwivedi said.

The counsel for Mr Dwivedi would resume his submissions on April 24.&nbsp

Earlier, the bench had said that if biometric authentication is attached to every transaction entered into by a person, it would "form a wealth of information" necessitating the need for data protection.

The bench observed that the UIDAI says Aadhaar is a means for identification, but the "only caveat to that is that there should be no exclusion".

The Supreme Court yesterday said it was not sure whether bringing people "face to face" with authorities through Aadhaar was the best model as the State should reach them to accord the benefits of the welfare schemes. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, was told by the counsel for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that the 12 digit national identifier brought the citizens face to face with the service providers for getting the benefits. "We are not sure if that is the best model. The individual should not be a supplicant. The State should go to him and give him benefits," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said. The bench observed that the UIDAI says Aadhaar is a means for identification, but the "only caveat to that is that there should be no exclusion". Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for UIDAI and the Gujarat government, said the development was necessary to ensure that people are freed from poverty. Liberating people from poverty is at one end of the spectrum and the right to privacy is on the other, the bench observed. The UIDAI referred to social ills like manual scavenging and prostitution and said that despite laws, these evils were rampant in the society and the apex court should strike a balance while dealing with the competing fundamental rights of citizens. Referring to apex court judgements, the senior lawyer said it has been held that to save the freedom of speech and expression, the right to reputation of a citizen under Article 21 cannot be crucified. The apex court, besides being the protector of fundamental rights, is also a "balancing wheel" to ensure that competing fundamentals co-exist. Mr Dwivedi then referred to a verdict by which an HIV positive rape victim was denied the permission to abort the foetus after a doctors' panel gave the report that it could be fatal for the woman. "The court balanced the rights in the case where fundamental right to life was involved," he said, adding that in the present matter, the issue merely pertained to identification. "What is being done under section 7 of the Aadhaar Act covers human rights of a lot of people of our country. This court should act as a sentinel to ensure that right to privacy is balanced with all the other rights under Article 21 that Aadhaar covers," Mr Dwivedi said. The counsel for Mr Dwivedi would resume his submissions on April 24. Earlier, the bench had said that if biometric authentication is attached to every transaction entered into by a person, it would "form a wealth of information" necessitating the need for data protection.

Not sure if Aadhaar is best model to accord benefits: Supreme Court

The Unique Identification Authority of India has made the startling claim that Google and smart card companies do not want the Aadhaar programme to succeed.&nbsp

The claim was made before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.&nbsp

News reports quoted Rakesh Dwivedi, the counsel appearing for the UIDAI, as saying that a campaign had been unelashed against Aadhaar.

Dwivedi told the Supreme Court that if the Aadhaar programme were to succeed —&nbsp should it turn into a foolproof way to authenticate someone's identity — the smart card companies&nbspwould go out of business. "Google does not want it. Smart card lobby does not want Aadhaar to succeed," he said.&nbsp

The Cambridge Analytica data leak controversy also found mention on Tuesday in the court, which red-flagged the threat of probable misuse of citizens' information by entities which were getting Aadhaar details authenticated by the UIDAI.&nbsp

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and enabling 2016 law, referred to the Cambridge Analytica controversy and said these are not "imaginary apprehensions" and, in the absence of robust data protection law, the issue of misuse of information becomes relevant.

"The real apprehension is that elections are swayed using data analytics. These problems are symptomatic of the world we live in," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.

"Please do not bring Cambridge Analytica into this. The UIDAI simply does not have the learning algorithms like Facebook, Google to analyse details of users," senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the Gujarat government, said.&nbsp

Besides the Aadhaar Act does not authorise any kind of data analysis, he said, adding the UIDAI has "simple matching algorithms" which give answers like 'yes' or 'no' after it receives a request for Aadhaar authentication from a requesting entity.

The bench, which posed several searching questions, asked the lawyer why the authorities were allowing private entities to use the Aadhaar platform for various purposes and referred to the legal provision to this effect.

"Why are words 'body corporate or any person' used in section 57 of the Act. It breaks the nexus of the Act with the Consolidated Fund of India... What is the point of involving private parties in the Aadhaar infrastructure," the bench asked.

Dwivedi responded by saying that "it does not allow any 'chaiwala' or a 'panwala' to become a requesting entity under the Act. It is a limited exercise. The UIDAI will not approve anyone to become an requesting entity (RE) unless it is satisfied that the particular entity needs to use facility of authentication."&nbsp

He also referred to private companies like Reliance venturing into the defence sector and said at some point in time, the court will have to decide the aspect where private firms were dealing with public functions of the state, which are currently being carried out by public sector companies.

Dwivedi also dealt with the persistent allegation that the people were being given a number identity as was done by dictator Adolf Hitler in Germany.&nbsp

"Hitler counted citizens to identify Jews, Christians etc. Here, we do not seek details like caste, creed and religion from the citizens," he said, adding that the history of numbers began in India and "numbers are beautiful and fascinating".

He also urged the bench not to give in to the "hyper phobia" against the Aadhaar created by the petitioners opposed to the "inclusive scheme" of the government based on a law and the proper infrastructure.&nbsp

(With inputs from PTI)

The counsel for the UIDAI told the court that should the Aadhaar programme succeed — should it turn into a foolproof way to authenticate someone's identity — the smart card companies would go out of business

The Unique Identification Authority of India has made the startling claim that Google and smart card companies do not want the Aadhaar programme to succeed. The claim was made before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. News reports quoted Rakesh Dwivedi, the counsel appearing for the UIDAI, as saying that a campaign had been unelashed against Aadhaar. Dwivedi told the Supreme Court that if the Aadhaar programme were to succeed — should it turn into a foolproof way to authenticate someone's identity — the smart card companies&nbspwould go out of business. "Google does not want it. Smart card lobby does not want Aadhaar to succeed," he said. The Cambridge Analytica data leak controversy also found mention on Tuesday in the court, which red-flagged the threat of probable misuse of citizens' information by entities which were getting Aadhaar details authenticated by the UIDAI. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and enabling 2016 law, referred to the Cambridge Analytica controversy and said these are not "imaginary apprehensions" and, in the absence of robust data protection law, the issue of misuse of information becomes relevant. "The real apprehension is that elections are swayed using data analytics. These problems are symptomatic of the world we live in," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said. "Please do not bring Cambridge Analytica into this. The UIDAI simply does not have the learning algorithms like Facebook, Google to analyse details of users," senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the Gujarat government, said. Besides the Aadhaar Act does not authorise any kind of data analysis, he said, adding the UIDAI has "simple matching algorithms" which give answers like 'yes' or 'no' after it receives a request for Aadhaar authentication from a requesting entity. The bench, which posed several searching questions, asked the lawyer why the authorities were allowing private entities to use the Aadhaar platform for various purposes and referred to the legal provision to this effect. "Why are words 'body corporate or any person' used in section 57 of the Act. It breaks the nexus of the Act with the Consolidated Fund of India... What is the point of involving private parties in the Aadhaar infrastructure," the bench asked. Dwivedi responded by saying that "it does not allow any 'chaiwala' or a 'panwala' to become a requesting entity under the Act. It is a limited exercise. The UIDAI will not approve anyone to become an requesting entity (RE) unless it is satisfied that the particular entity needs to use facility of authentication." He also referred to private companies like Reliance venturing into the defence sector and said at some point in time, the court will have to decide the aspect where private firms were dealing with public functions of the state, which are currently being carried out by public sector companies. Dwivedi also dealt with the persistent allegation that the people were being given a number identity as was done by dictator Adolf Hitler in Germany. "Hitler counted citizens to identify Jews, Christians etc. Here, we do not seek details like caste, creed and religion from the citizens," he said, adding that the history of numbers began in India and "numbers are beautiful and fascinating". He also urged the bench not to give in to the "hyper phobia" against the Aadhaar created by the petitioners opposed to the "inclusive scheme" of the government based on a law and the proper infrastructure. (With inputs from PTI)

Google, smart card companies do not want Aadhaar to succeed: UIDAI to Supreme Court

There should be no delay in the payment of pension to senior citizens on the pretext of Aadhaar linking, the Central Information Commission noted on Tuesday.&nbsp;The observation of Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu came on the petition of an Ahmednagar-resident, Nirmala Nishikant Dhumane, who had sought to know from the postal department why her pension for March 2017 was withheld for want of a copy of Aadhaar card.

Through another application, she had demanded the copy of the orders that made it mandatory to link Aadhaar card for availing pension.&nbsp;There are 61.17 lakh central government pensioners in the country, according to official data.&nbsp;The Central Public Information Officer of the post office explained that, out of 757 pensioners, 640 pensioners had submitted their Aadhaar details to the Senior Postmaster which were uploaded in the computer system on April 3, 2017.

The officer claimed that pension was not withheld. However, there was delay in crediting pension to their saving bank accounts, the officer added.&nbsp;He said the file of 117 pensioners was also uploaded in the system the next day for giving credit of pension to their bank accounts.&nbsp;Acharyulu noted that pension-related information of other beneficiaries was denied under the privacy provision.

The Information Commissioner said the CPIO cited tremendous work pressure and burden of investigating a fraud as disturbing factors.&nbsp;The CPIO also listed 15 orders from the higher authorities to link Aadhaar to pensioners’ accounts, which he was to implement.&nbsp;“In the name of linking to Aadhaar or other such conditions, the public authority cannot delay the payment of pension to senior citizens and retired employees in view of their post-retirement requirements,” Acharyulu said.&nbsp;He said even if linking with Aadhaar is necessary, it should not result in delaying the payment of pension or denial of information regarding pension.

“The pensioners might mainly depend upon the pension for their livelihood and delaying it will be inhumane and also amounts to denial of their fundamental right to life,” he said.&nbsp;Acharyulu made clear that the salary detail of the public servant is not his personal information and is part of mandatory disclosure by every office under the RTI Act.

“On the same logic, the pension related information is not personal information of the pensioner. The CPIO should not have denied that information wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,” he said.&nbsp;Agreeing with the explanation given by the CPIO on the linking of Aadhaar card in pensioners’ accounts, Acharyulu only imposed a token penalty of Rs 250 on him for the wrongful denial of information.

Agreeing with the explanation given by the CPIO on the linking of Aadhaar card in pensioners' accounts, Acharyulu only imposed a token penalty of Rs 250 on him for the wrongful denial of information.

There should be no delay in the payment of pension to senior citizens on the pretext of Aadhaar linking, the Central Information Commission noted on Tuesday. The observation of Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu came on the petition of an Ahmednagar-resident, Nirmala Nishikant Dhumane, who had sought to know from the postal department why her pension for March 2017 was withheld for want of a copy of Aadhaar card. Through another application, she had demanded the copy of the orders that made it mandatory to link Aadhaar card for availing pension. There are 61.17 lakh central government pensioners in the country, according to official data. The Central Public Information Officer of the post office explained that, out of 757 pensioners, 640 pensioners had submitted their Aadhaar details to the Senior Postmaster which were uploaded in the computer system on April 3, 2017. The officer claimed that pension was not withheld. However, there was delay in crediting pension to their saving bank accounts, the officer added. He said the file of 117 pensioners was also uploaded in the system the next day for giving credit of pension to their bank accounts. Acharyulu noted that pension-related information of other beneficiaries was denied under the privacy provision. The Information Commissioner said the CPIO cited tremendous work pressure and burden of investigating a fraud as disturbing factors. The CPIO also listed 15 orders from the higher authorities to link Aadhaar to pensioners’ accounts, which he was to implement. “In the name of linking to Aadhaar or other such conditions, the public authority cannot delay the payment of pension to senior citizens and retired employees in view of their post-retirement requirements,” Acharyulu said. He said even if linking with Aadhaar is necessary, it should not result in delaying the payment of pension or denial of information regarding pension. “The pensioners might mainly depend upon the pension for their livelihood and delaying it will be inhumane and also amounts to denial of their fundamental right to life,” he said. Acharyulu made clear that the salary detail of the public servant is not his personal information and is part of mandatory disclosure by every office under the RTI Act. “On the same logic, the pension related information is not personal information of the pensioner. The CPIO should not have denied that information wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,” he said. Agreeing with the explanation given by the CPIO on the linking of Aadhaar card in pensioners’ accounts, Acharyulu only imposed a token penalty of Rs 250 on him for the wrongful denial of information.

There should be no delay in pension disbursal in name of Aadhaar linking, says CIC

Enrolment of a mentally-ill woman under the Aadhaar scheme came handy as it helped her reunite with her family after she went missing over four months ago.

The 31-year-old woman was found abandoned on Delhi roads and after being rescued by police, she was sent to short-stay home 'Nirmal Chhaya' by a court which had directed the authorities to help her undergo Aadhaar registration.

In the process of making her Aadhaar card, it was revealed that her biometric records preexisted in the Aadhaar database and the Delhi Police was able to obtain her details from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

The consistent efforts of court to reunite her with her family proved fruitful when Metropolitan Magistrate Abhilash Malhotra was informed by police officials that they have found her antecedents. Her missing complaint was lodged in Malakhera police station in Rajasthan's Alwar district on November 30, 2017.

When the police contacted her husband, he willingly came forward to take her back home.

During a recent hearing, the woman, who was kept in Asha Kiran, a home for the mentally retarded in Rohini, and her husband were brought to the court.

The investigating officer submitted that they have verified the credentials of the man and the police has no objection to reintegration of the woman to her family.

"Accordingly, the patient be handed over to her husband after completion of necessary formalities in Asha Kiran. Husband of the woman is directed to ensure proper treatment of the patient is continued," the magistrate said.

The court also appreciated inspector Devender Kumar Singh, SHO of Kashmere Gate Police Station, and sub inspector Satender Singh for making "untiring efforts" to trace the family of the woman and reuniting her with her family.

The woman, who was found by police near Kashmere Gate in February, was also admitted to IHBAS for treatment.

When the court interacted with her, she was not found in a fit state of mind.

To ascertain the aspect of sexual abuse, she was also examined by the doctors at a government hospital here but they found no visible sign of such assault and her pregnancy test were also negative.

The Supreme Court has been hearing various pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar scheme.

Half-way homes serve as a stop-gap place for people who have undergone treatment for mental illness before they venture into the real world.

The high court had in 2009 passed directions for making half-way homes after a public interest litigation was filed on the issue.

&nbsp

In the process of making her Aadhaar card, it was revealed that her biometric records preexisted in the Aadhaar database and the Delhi Police was able to obtain her details from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)

Enrolment of a mentally-ill woman under the Aadhaar scheme came handy as it helped her reunite with her family after she went missing over four months ago. The 31-year-old woman was found abandoned on Delhi roads and after being rescued by police, she was sent to short-stay home 'Nirmal Chhaya' by a court which had directed the authorities to help her undergo Aadhaar registration. In the process of making her Aadhaar card, it was revealed that her biometric records preexisted in the Aadhaar database and the Delhi Police was able to obtain her details from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The consistent efforts of court to reunite her with her family proved fruitful when Metropolitan Magistrate Abhilash Malhotra was informed by police officials that they have found her antecedents. Her missing complaint was lodged in Malakhera police station in Rajasthan's Alwar district on November 30, 2017. When the police contacted her husband, he willingly came forward to take her back home. During a recent hearing, the woman, who was kept in Asha Kiran, a home for the mentally retarded in Rohini, and her husband were brought to the court. The investigating officer submitted that they have verified the credentials of the man and the police has no objection to reintegration of the woman to her family. "Accordingly, the patient be handed over to her husband after completion of necessary formalities in Asha Kiran. Husband of the woman is directed to ensure proper treatment of the patient is continued," the magistrate said. The court also appreciated inspector Devender Kumar Singh, SHO of Kashmere Gate Police Station, and sub inspector Satender Singh for making "untiring efforts" to trace the family of the woman and reuniting her with her family. The woman, who was found by police near Kashmere Gate in February, was also admitted to IHBAS for treatment. When the court interacted with her, she was not found in a fit state of mind. To ascertain the aspect of sexual abuse, she was also examined by the doctors at a government hospital here but they found no visible sign of such assault and her pregnancy test were also negative. The Supreme Court has been hearing various pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar scheme. Half-way homes serve as a stop-gap place for people who have undergone treatment for mental illness before they venture into the real world. The high court had in 2009 passed directions for making half-way homes after a public interest litigation was filed on the issue.

Aadhaar details help mentally-ill woman reunite with family

Minors, whose Aadhaar card has already been generated, cannot opt out of the Aadhaar scheme after attaining majority, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) today told the Supreme Court. Attorney General K K Venugopal was referring to the written replies of UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to the queries posed by the petitioners, opposed to the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law, before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

He said that school authorities can act as introducers to get children, between the age group of 5 to 15 years, enrolled for Aadhaar with the parental consent. Responding to a query whether a child, after attaining the age of 18 years, can opt out, the top law officer told the bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chanadrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that it is not permissible under the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

“However, residents have the option of permanently locking their biometrics and only temporarily unlocking it when needed for biometric authentication as per Regulation 11 of the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016,” he said. The lawyers for the petitioners had given a list of queries to the UIDAI CEO after he had concluded his PowerPoint Presentation (PPT) to allay apprehensions with regard the Aadhaar scheme.

In response to the query as to what were the Aadhaar authentication failure rates in the states and at the national level, Venugopal said the UIDAI cannot provide authentication failure rates at the state level since it does not track the location of the authentication transactions. Referring to the data, he further said that the biometric failure rates are at 6 per cent for fingerprints and 8.54 per cent for iris at the national level.

“It must be stated that authentication failures do not mean exclusion or denial from subsidies, benefits or services since the requesting entities are obliged under the law to provide for exception handling mechanisms,” he said. In response to a question as to how a leprosy patient or a person, who does not have a mobile number, is being enrolled for Aadhaar, the top law officer said, “Aadhaar enrolment is done for all residents, even of residents with leprosy. Biometric exception process is defined in the UIDAI resident enrolment process.

“In the case of a leprosy patient, who may not be able to do fingerprint authentication, iris authentication can be used for update (and the mobile number added). This was the reason for multi-modal enrolment and authentication being selected for use in Aadhaar.” As part of the exception handling mechanism, the UIDAI has already implemented a digitally signed QR code into eAadhaar which allows agencies to verify the Aadhaar card in an offline manner and trust the data, he said.

Venugopal said that as on March 21, the total number of biometric de-duplication rejections that have taken place are 6.91 crore. “This figure merely pertains to number of applications which have been identified by the Aadhaar de-duplication system as having matching biometrics to an existing Aadhaar number holder… “It is highly improbable for the biometrics to match unless the same person has applied again. There are a number of reasons why the same person might apply more than once.,” he said.

Venugopal said, “For instance, many individuals innocently apply for enrolment multiple times because of the delay in getting their Aadhaar cards due to postal delays, loss or destruction of their cards or confusion about how the system works.” Those whose enrolments have been rejected for any reason and who do not have Aadhaar can re-enrol and obtain it, he said, adding that rejection of enrolments did not mean that a person will never be able to get it.

Minors, whose Aadhaar card has already been generated, cannot opt out of the Aadhaar scheme after attaining majority, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) today told the Supreme Court.

Minors, whose Aadhaar card has already been generated, cannot opt out of the Aadhaar scheme after attaining majority, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) today told the Supreme Court. Attorney General K K Venugopal was referring to the written replies of UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to the queries posed by the petitioners, opposed to the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law, before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. He said that school authorities can act as introducers to get children, between the age group of 5 to 15 years, enrolled for Aadhaar with the parental consent. Responding to a query whether a child, after attaining the age of 18 years, can opt out, the top law officer told the bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chanadrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that it is not permissible under the Aadhaar Act, 2016. “However, residents have the option of permanently locking their biometrics and only temporarily unlocking it when needed for biometric authentication as per Regulation 11 of the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016,” he said. The lawyers for the petitioners had given a list of queries to the UIDAI CEO after he had concluded his PowerPoint Presentation (PPT) to allay apprehensions with regard the Aadhaar scheme. In response to the query as to what were the Aadhaar authentication failure rates in the states and at the national level, Venugopal said the UIDAI cannot provide authentication failure rates at the state level since it does not track the location of the authentication transactions. Referring to the data, he further said that the biometric failure rates are at 6 per cent for fingerprints and 8.54 per cent for iris at the national level. “It must be stated that authentication failures do not mean exclusion or denial from subsidies, benefits or services since the requesting entities are obliged under the law to provide for exception handling mechanisms,” he said. In response to a question as to how a leprosy patient or a person, who does not have a mobile number, is being enrolled for Aadhaar, the top law officer said, “Aadhaar enrolment is done for all residents, even of residents with leprosy. Biometric exception process is defined in the UIDAI resident enrolment process. “In the case of a leprosy patient, who may not be able to do fingerprint authentication, iris authentication can be used for update (and the mobile number added). This was the reason for multi-modal enrolment and authentication being selected for use in Aadhaar.” As part of the exception handling mechanism, the UIDAI has already implemented a digitally signed QR code into eAadhaar which allows agencies to verify the Aadhaar card in an offline manner and trust the data, he said. Venugopal said that as on March 21, the total number of biometric de-duplication rejections that have taken place are 6.91 crore. “This figure merely pertains to number of applications which have been identified by the Aadhaar de-duplication system as having matching biometrics to an existing Aadhaar number holder… “It is highly improbable for the biometrics to match unless the same person has applied again. There are a number of reasons why the same person might apply more than once.,” he said. Venugopal said, “For instance, many individuals innocently apply for enrolment multiple times because of the delay in getting their Aadhaar cards due to postal delays, loss or destruction of their cards or confusion about how the system works.” Those whose enrolments have been rejected for any reason and who do not have Aadhaar can re-enrol and obtain it, he said, adding that rejection of enrolments did not mean that a person will never be able to get it.

Minors can’t opt out of Aadhaar after attaining majority: UIDAI to Supreme Court

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) today said since Aadhaar was being made mandatory for numerous financial transactions and property deals, it could be used effectively in tracking the ill-gotten wealth of corrupt bureaucrats.

The anti-corruption watchdog was optimistic that information made available through a person's Permanent Account Number (PAN) and Aadhaar cards could help the CVC check if financial deals carried out by the card-holder were within his or her means.

"We have prepared a concept paper. The idea is to prepare some kind of an operational procedure and if possible some kind of software so that once it is decided to investigate X, Y or Z, we can connect in a seamless manner with other departments to get the necessary details (regarding the person) using Aadhaar,"&nbspCentral Vigilance Commissioner K V Chowdary told PTI in an interview.

He said data about financial transactions including those related to immovable properties and shares were available in various domain areas of Income Tax authorities, registration departments or Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and other government agencies.

With Aadhaar being made mandatory for some financial transactions, Chowdary said it would be in a position to get data from a few centralised agencies and use the information for the purpose of determining a transaction made by an individual and to probe Disproportionate Assets (DA).

The CVC said CBI and other investigating agencies earlier did not have easy access to such data.

"Now that the data is available and it is very valuable, it needs to be leveraged. This data... Will give a much better picture of receipt, expenditure and investments of an officer,"&nbspsaid Chowdary, who headed the Income Tax Department before taking over as the chief of the probity watchdog.

Expressing the resolve to take every possible step and route to weed out corruption in line with Prime Minister Narender Modi's vision for a "corruption-free nation"&nbspand war against black money, he said the human aspect -- such as the role of individuals and auditors -- in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) loan scam showed that investigation needs to look at the use of technology for misdeeds and for covering them up.

This, Chowdary said, would require some software preparation, Standard Operating Procedures and perhaps some approvals." It is under preparation," he said.&nbsp

The CVC said CBI and other investigating agencies earlier did not have easy access to such data

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) today said since Aadhaar was being made mandatory for numerous financial transactions and property deals, it could be used effectively in tracking the ill-gotten wealth of corrupt bureaucrats. The anti-corruption watchdog was optimistic that information made available through a person's Permanent Account Number (PAN) and Aadhaar cards could help the CVC check if financial deals carried out by the card-holder were within his or her means. "We have prepared a concept paper. The idea is to prepare some kind of an operational procedure and if possible some kind of software so that once it is decided to investigate X, Y or Z, we can connect in a seamless manner with other departments to get the necessary details (regarding the person) using Aadhaar,"&nbspCentral Vigilance Commissioner K V Chowdary told PTI in an interview. He said data about financial transactions including those related to immovable properties and shares were available in various domain areas of Income Tax authorities, registration departments or Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and other government agencies. With Aadhaar being made mandatory for some financial transactions, Chowdary said it would be in a position to get data from a few centralised agencies and use the information for the purpose of determining a transaction made by an individual and to probe Disproportionate Assets (DA). The CVC said CBI and other investigating agencies earlier did not have easy access to such data. "Now that the data is available and it is very valuable, it needs to be leveraged. This data... Will give a much better picture of receipt, expenditure and investments of an officer,"&nbspsaid Chowdary, who headed the Income Tax Department before taking over as the chief of the probity watchdog. Expressing the resolve to take every possible step and route to weed out corruption in line with Prime Minister Narender Modi's vision for a "corruption-free nation"&nbspand war against black money, he said the human aspect -- such as the role of individuals and auditors -- in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) loan scam showed that investigation needs to look at the use of technology for misdeeds and for covering them up. This, Chowdary said, would require some software preparation, Standard Operating Procedures and perhaps some approvals." It is under preparation," he said.

Aadhaar can be used to detect corruption by bureaucrats: Central Vigilance Commission

The Central Board of Direct Taxes today extended the deadline for linking the permanent account number and Aadhaar to June 30. The policy-making body of the tax department issued an order extending the deadline from the current last date of March 31.

A statement from CBDT said after "consideration of the matter", it has decided to extend the deadline.Earlier in March, the Supreme Court indefinitely extended the deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones.

March 31 was also the previous deadline for linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones to avail their services.&nbsp;

This is the fourth extension given by the government for individuals to link their Permanent Account Number with their biometric ID (Aadhaar).

The government has now made quoting of Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns as well as obtaining a new PAN. Section 139 AA (2) of the Income Tax Act says that every person having PAN as on July 1, 2017, and eligible to obtain Aadhaar, must intimate his Aadhaar number to the tax authorities.

March 31 was also the previous deadline for linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones to avail their services.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes today extended the deadline for linking the permanent account number and Aadhaar to June 30. The policy-making body of the tax department issued an order extending the deadline from the current last date of March 31. A statement from CBDT said after "consideration of the matter", it has decided to extend the deadline.Earlier in March, the Supreme Court indefinitely extended the deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones. March 31 was also the previous deadline for linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones to avail their services. This is the fourth extension given by the government for individuals to link their Permanent Account Number with their biometric ID (Aadhaar). The government has now made quoting of Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns as well as obtaining a new PAN. Section 139 AA (2) of the Income Tax Act says that every person having PAN as on July 1, 2017, and eligible to obtain Aadhaar, must intimate his Aadhaar number to the tax authorities.

Aadhaar-PAN linking deadline extended to June 30: CBDT

The Supreme Court today refused to pass an interim order extending the deadline of March 31 for linking of Aadhaar with the welfare schemes where benefits are transferred to citizens from the Consolidated Fund of India.

The top court had on March 13 extended indefinitely the March 31 deadline for linking bank accounts and mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar.

However, it had allowed the government and its agencies to link the 12-digit national biometric identifier number of the beneficiaries for transfer of benefits of schemes funded from this fund.

A plea, seeking extension of time beyond March 31 for linking Aadhaar with welfare schemes, was made today before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra after Ajay Bhushan Pandey, CEO of Unique Identification

Authority of India (UIDAI), concluded his PowerPoint presentation (PPT), claiming it would take "billions of years" to decrypt the saved data, including the biometrics.

Senior advocate K V Viswanath, appearing for a petitioner opposed to the Aadhaar scheme, took a cue from the PPT in which the UIDAI CEO said that the success rate of Aadhaar authentication in government systems was 88 per cent.

"If the data of UIDAI says that there was only 88 per cent success rate of Aadhaar authentication, then it means that 12 per cent people are excluded from the benefits in schemes linked with Aadhaar. Twelve per cent failure is too high," the lawyer said, adding that almost 14 crore citizens cannot take benefits.

An interim order is required to be passed to extend the March 31 deadline for welfare schemes also, Viswanath said during the day-long hearing before the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

Attorney General K K Venugopal vehemently opposed the submission saying "nobody has been excluded. Not a single case is there where denial of benefits (for want of Aadhaar) has taken place".

The bench then said "We will not pass any interim order at this stage" and added that the petitioner may argue this aspect in their rejoinder submissions.

The UIDAI CEO, in his presentation, referred to the success rate of biometric authentication and said "for government systems, the success rate is 88 per cent, for banks it is 95 per cent and for telecom, it is 97 per cent".

He said the success rate of Aadhaar authentication was lower in government system because of some "vested interests".

Some people wanted that the Aadhaar-linked services to go and hence, the misinformation was being spread and the some section of media was also helping in it.

To buttress the submission, Pandey referred to Aadhaar authentication success rates at banks and in telecom companies and said these were 95 per cent and 97 per cent respectively.

"67 crore SIM cards have been sold by telecom companies by using Aadhaar authentication," he said, adding that in business activities, the success rates were higher and "the reasons are obvious".

Allaying the apprehensions regarding failures in authentication of elderly people, the UIDAI CEO said the success rate was 83 per cent and if iris is also matched, then it goes to 90 per cent.

He said that from July, the authentication process will also include "face recognition technology" which would be more accurate and enhance the success rate.

At the outset, the CEO gave the details of enrolment operators who have been blacklisted and said that 10,268 such entities have been suspended for various reasons like corruption, use of unparliamentary language, lack of quality.

"Have you suspended any operator who have parted with information," the bench asked.

The CEO said the enrolment process, which includes capturing of biometrics, is being conducted on the UIDAI's software and the moment the operator presses the 'save' button, the data gets encrypted. It would take "billions of years" to decrypt it, he said.

UIDAI was also phasing out private enrolment agencies and the process was on to ensure that enrolment is carried out only at banks and post offices, he said, adding that the Aadhaar Act makes sharing of any data punishable as well.

The bench asked the UIDAI to satisfy it as to whether any aggregation of data was possible or not.

The UIDAI head said there was not much details with it as Aadhaar required minimum information from citizens like photograph, demographics, finger prints and iris. It does not collect details of "religion, caste, tribe, language, records of entitlements, income or medical history and profession", he said.

The UIDAI is "blind" to the real purpose for which Aadhaar authentication has been done and there is no question of surveillance on citizens, he said.

After the UIDAI CEO concluded his presentation, senior advocates Shyam Divan and K V Viswanath gave a list of 20 questions to the bench which asked Pandey to submit a written response.

The hearing on clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, would resume on April 3 when the Attorney General would restart advancing his submissions.&nbsp

The top court had on March 13 extended indefinitely the March 31 deadline for linking bank accounts and mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar

The Supreme Court today refused to pass an interim order extending the deadline of March 31 for linking of Aadhaar with the welfare schemes where benefits are transferred to citizens from the Consolidated Fund of India. The top court had on March 13 extended indefinitely the March 31 deadline for linking bank accounts and mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar. However, it had allowed the government and its agencies to link the 12-digit national biometric identifier number of the beneficiaries for transfer of benefits of schemes funded from this fund. A plea, seeking extension of time beyond March 31 for linking Aadhaar with welfare schemes, was made today before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra after Ajay Bhushan Pandey, CEO of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), concluded his PowerPoint presentation (PPT), claiming it would take "billions of years" to decrypt the saved data, including the biometrics. Senior advocate K V Viswanath, appearing for a petitioner opposed to the Aadhaar scheme, took a cue from the PPT in which the UIDAI CEO said that the success rate of Aadhaar authentication in government systems was 88 per cent. "If the data of UIDAI says that there was only 88 per cent success rate of Aadhaar authentication, then it means that 12 per cent people are excluded from the benefits in schemes linked with Aadhaar. Twelve per cent failure is too high," the lawyer said, adding that almost 14 crore citizens cannot take benefits. An interim order is required to be passed to extend the March 31 deadline for welfare schemes also, Viswanath said during the day-long hearing before the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Attorney General K K Venugopal vehemently opposed the submission saying "nobody has been excluded. Not a single case is there where denial of benefits (for want of Aadhaar) has taken place". The bench then said "We will not pass any interim order at this stage" and added that the petitioner may argue this aspect in their rejoinder submissions. The UIDAI CEO, in his presentation, referred to the success rate of biometric authentication and said "for government systems, the success rate is 88 per cent, for banks it is 95 per cent and for telecom, it is 97 per cent". He said the success rate of Aadhaar authentication was lower in government system because of some "vested interests". Some people wanted that the Aadhaar-linked services to go and hence, the misinformation was being spread and the some section of media was also helping in it. To buttress the submission, Pandey referred to Aadhaar authentication success rates at banks and in telecom companies and said these were 95 per cent and 97 per cent respectively. "67 crore SIM cards have been sold by telecom companies by using Aadhaar authentication," he said, adding that in business activities, the success rates were higher and "the reasons are obvious". Allaying the apprehensions regarding failures in authentication of elderly people, the UIDAI CEO said the success rate was 83 per cent and if iris is also matched, then it goes to 90 per cent. He said that from July, the authentication process will also include "face recognition technology" which would be more accurate and enhance the success rate. At the outset, the CEO gave the details of enrolment operators who have been blacklisted and said that 10,268 such entities have been suspended for various reasons like corruption, use of unparliamentary language, lack of quality. "Have you suspended any operator who have parted with information," the bench asked. The CEO said the enrolment process, which includes capturing of biometrics, is being conducted on the UIDAI's software and the moment the operator presses the 'save' button, the data gets encrypted. It would take "billions of years" to decrypt it, he said. UIDAI was also phasing out private enrolment agencies and the process was on to ensure that enrolment is carried out only at banks and post offices, he said, adding that the Aadhaar Act makes sharing of any data punishable as well. The bench asked the UIDAI to satisfy it as to whether any aggregation of data was possible or not. The UIDAI head said there was not much details with it as Aadhaar required minimum information from citizens like photograph, demographics, finger prints and iris. It does not collect details of "religion, caste, tribe, language, records of entitlements, income or medical history and profession", he said. The UIDAI is "blind" to the real purpose for which Aadhaar authentication has been done and there is no question of surveillance on citizens, he said. After the UIDAI CEO concluded his presentation, senior advocates Shyam Divan and K V Viswanath gave a list of 20 questions to the bench which asked Pandey to submit a written response. The hearing on clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, would resume on April 3 when the Attorney General would restart advancing his submissions.

No extension of time for linking Aadhaar to welfare schemes: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed off a plea of an activist lawyer who was denied &#39;tatkal&#39; passport on the ground of non-submission of Aadhaar, saying the issue has been settled as the government will now not seek the biometric identifier till the constitution bench decides the pleas against the scheme.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud disposed off the petition of lawyer Vrinda Grover who was denied a tatkal passport for her travel to Bangladesh to attend a conference as she had failed to submit her Aadhaar details.

&quot;We are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in the instant petition shall be considered by the Constitution Bench while dealing with the issue pertaining to Aadhaar and, therefore, we are not inclined to keep this matter pending.

&quot;Be it noted, the grievance of the petitioner has already been dealt with by the Constitution Bench. ...The writ petition stands disposed off,&quot; the bench said.

In the last hearing, counsel for Grover had told the bench that denial of &#39;tatkal&#39; passport for want of Aadhaar was a blatant violation of the apex court&#39;s interim order, as the authorities were insisting on Aadhaar even before the then deadline of March 31.

A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, had indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline it had set through its interim order on December 15 last year to link services to possession of the unique identity number.

The apex court had March 13 extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar to bank accounts and mobile phones and ordered that except for disbursing subsidies, the Centre and states cannot insist on Aadhaar for any service, including issuance of passports. The extension will be in place till the court delivers its final judgment.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the last hearing, counsel for a petition of lawyer Vrinda Grover had told the bench that denial of 'tatkal' passport for want of Aadhaar was a blatant violation of the apex court's interim order, as the authorities were insisting on Aadhaar even before the then deadline of March 31

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed off a plea of an activist lawyer who was denied 'tatkal' passport on the ground of non-submission of Aadhaar, saying the issue has been settled as the government will now not seek the biometric identifier till the constitution bench decides the pleas against the scheme. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud disposed off the petition of lawyer Vrinda Grover who was denied a tatkal passport for her travel to Bangladesh to attend a conference as she had failed to submit her Aadhaar details. "We are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in the instant petition shall be considered by the Constitution Bench while dealing with the issue pertaining to Aadhaar and, therefore, we are not inclined to keep this matter pending. "Be it noted, the grievance of the petitioner has already been dealt with by the Constitution Bench. ...The writ petition stands disposed off," the bench said. In the last hearing, counsel for Grover had told the bench that denial of 'tatkal' passport for want of Aadhaar was a blatant violation of the apex court's interim order, as the authorities were insisting on Aadhaar even before the then deadline of March 31. A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, had indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline it had set through its interim order on December 15 last year to link services to possession of the unique identity number. The apex court had March 13 extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar to bank accounts and mobile phones and ordered that except for disbursing subsidies, the Centre and states cannot insist on Aadhaar for any service, including issuance of passports. The extension will be in place till the court delivers its final judgment.

Supreme Court disposes of plea against mandatory submission of Aadhaar for 'tatkal' passport

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/mark-zuckerbergs-shine-dims-as-guardian-of-facebook-users-36795" target="_blank">Mark Zuckerberg&#39;s shine dims as guardian of Facebook users</a>

Mark Zuckerberg rose to wealth and fame with a mission of connecting everyone through Facebook, but now faces the wrath of users outraged he isn&#39;t doing more to defend their data.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/in-yet-another-shake-up-trump-replaces-nation-security-adviser-mcmaster-with-bolton-36782" target="_blank">In yet another shake-up of his foreign policy team, Trump replaces NSA McMaster with Bolton</a>

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump shook up his foreign policy team again on Thursday, replacing HR&nbsp;McMaster as national security adviser with John Bolton, a hawk who has advocated using military force against North Korea and Iran.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/breaking-the-aadhaar-encryption-may-take-more-than-the-age-of-the-universe-uidai-ceo-36798" target="_blank">Breaking Aadhaar encryption may take &#39;more than </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/breaking-the-aadhaar-encryption-may-take-more-than-the-age-of-the-universe-uidai-ceo-36798" target="_blank">age</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/breaking-the-aadhaar-encryption-may-take-more-than-the-age-of-the-universe-uidai-ceo-36798" target="_blank"> of universe&#39;: UIDAI CEO</a>

Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey on Thursday afternoon got a unique opportunity to make a PowerPoint presentation in the Supreme court to defend the government&#39;s ambitious Aadhaar scheme.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ram-janmabhoomi-case-supreme-court-to-continue-final-hearing-36785" target="_blank">Babri Masjid case: Supreme Court to continue &#39;final hearing&#39; today</a>

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday. The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-strikes-back-in-trade-spat-aims-tariffs-at-3-billion-us-goods-36786" target="_blank">China strikes back in trade spat, aims tariffs at $3 billion US goods</a>

China unveiled plans on Friday to impose tariffs on up to $3 billion of US&nbsp;imports in retaliation against US&nbsp;tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium products, as the world&#39;s two largest economies stood on the brink of a trade war.

&nbsp;

Mark Zuckerberg's shine dims as guardian of Facebook users Mark Zuckerberg rose to wealth and fame with a mission of connecting everyone through Facebook, but now faces the wrath of users outraged he isn't doing more to defend their data. In yet another shake-up of his foreign policy team, Trump replaces NSA McMaster with Bolton US President Donald Trump shook up his foreign policy team again on Thursday, replacing HR McMaster as national security adviser with John Bolton, a hawk who has advocated using military force against North Korea and Iran. Breaking Aadhaar encryption may take 'more than age of universe': UIDAI CEO Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey on Thursday afternoon got a unique opportunity to make a PowerPoint presentation in the Supreme court to defend the government's ambitious Aadhaar scheme. Babri Masjid case: Supreme Court to continue 'final hearing' today The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday. The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. China strikes back in trade spat, aims tariffs at $3 billion US goods China unveiled plans on Friday to impose tariffs on up to $3 billion of US imports in retaliation against US tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium products, as the world's two largest economies stood on the brink of a trade war.

WION Morning News Brief, March 23, 2018

aadhaar

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