Tag: aadhar

Safeguarding Aadhaar Data

Recently, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) first issued a warning to the public not to share a photocopy of their Aadhaar with any organisation, and then withdrew the warning over worries that it was open to “misinterpretation”.

What is the Unique Identification Authority of India?

The UIDAI is a statutory authority established on 12th July 2016 by the Government of India under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, following the provisions of the Aadhaar Act 2016. The UIDAI was initially set up by the Government of India in January 2009, as an attached office under the aegis of the Planning Commission.

The UIDAI is mandated to assign a 12-digit unique identification (UID) number (Aadhaar) to all the residents of India.

As of 31st October 2021, UIDAI had issued 131.68 crore Aadhaar numbers.

What was the Initial Warning from UIDAI?

The UIDAI warned the “general public not to share photocopy of one’s Aadhaar with any organisation, because it can be misused”.

  • Rather, it recommended using “a masked Aadhaar, which displays only the last four digits of the Aadhaar number,”.
  • It also asked the public to avoid using public computers to download their e-Aadhaar.
  • In that case, they were reminded to “permanently delete” any downloaded copies of the same.
  • Only those organisations that have obtained a User License from the UIDAI can use Aadhaar to establish the identity of a person.
  • Moreover, hotels and movie theatres are not allowed to collect or maintain copies of the Aadhaar cards, due to the Aadhaar Act.

What are the Concerns related to Aadhaar?

Misuse of Aadhaar Data:

  • Many private entities in the country insist on an Aadhaar card, and users often share the details.
  • There’s no clarity on how these entities keep these data private and secure.
  • More recently with Covid-19 testing, many would have noticed that most labs insist on Aadhaar card data, including a photocopy.
  • It should be noted that it is not mandatory to share this for getting a Covid-19 test done.

Excessive Imposition:

  • In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar authentication can be made mandatory only for benefits paid from the Consolidated Fund of India and that alternative means of identity verification must always be provided when Aadhaar fails.
  • Children were exempt but aadhaar continues to be routinely demanded from children for basic rights such as anganwadi services or school enrolment.

Arbitrary exclusions:

  • Central and state governments have made routine use of the “ultimatum method” to enforce the linkage of welfare benefits with Aadhaar.
  • In this method, benefits are simply withdrawn or suspended if the recipients fail to comply with the linkage instructions in good time, such as failing to link their job card, ration card or bank account with Aadhaar.

Fraud-prone Aadhaar-enabled Payment System (AePS):

  • AePS is a facility that enables someone who has an Aadhaar-linked account to withdraw money from it anywhere in India through biometric authentication with a “business correspondent” – a kind of mini-ATM.
  • There have been rampant abuses of this facility by corrupt business correspondents.

Right to Privacy (Post-Puttaswamy Judgment)

In this modern age, information is power. And allowing the government to exercise this power over us is not only a grave breach of our privacy but also a betrayal of the idea on which this nation stands on i.e, free and democratic. And this project by the government doesn’t allow us to be free and democratic as it stands as an obstacle for us to enjoy the right to privacy which means having control over your own personal data and the ability to grant or deny access to others. Even though many might argue that, the right of privacy is nowhere specified under the constitution as a fundamental right, but it has been declared by the SC as implied to the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty. (Govind v. State of MP SC, 1975)

Apart from the threat of mass surveillance through the AADHAR Scheme, one of the major concerns is the issue of confidentiality of the database. And the same was mentioned in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India (SC, 2017). In this case, a PIL was filed against the government in the SC. It was contended that the government was storing all the acquired data in a centralized database without any proper safety measures any private entity can use that data. And it was also contended that the govt. was implementing this project without any legislative backing. It was pointed out that the NIAI Bill, 2010 which introduced in the Rajya Sabha was still pending. That since UIDAI was running on only an executive order, it cannot collect biometric data of citizens as it would be a violation of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court overruled verdicts given in the M.P. Sharma v. Union of India (SC, 1954) case and the Kharak Singh (SC, 1963) case, both of which said that the right to privacy is not protected under the Indian constitution. And held that all citizens enjoy a fundamental right to privacy, a right that is protected under Article 21 of the constitution.

In 2019, the Bombay High Court (High Court) was given the opportunity to rule on the law of phone tapping and surveillance in the post-Puttaswamy era, applying the principles of the right to privacy to section 5(2) of the Information Technology Act. In Vinit Kumar (Writ Petition 2367/2019) case, a businessman accused of paying bribes to bank staff in order to obtain credit, and challenged certain CBI orders directing the interception of his phone calls, claiming that such orders were ultra-vires of section 5(2) of the IT Act. The Court ruled that intercepting the businessman’s communications was unlawful, overturned the orders, and ordered that any information gathered through the surveillance be destroyed. This case is important in ensuring that fundamental rights are protected and that authorities do not abuse the authority of phone surveillance to target individual people for economic crimes or to evade legal procedures. In the time we live in, it appears that the judgment given in Puttaswamy case will be tested again and again.