Activists are urging the PM to immediately stop the UID or Aadhaar number scheme due to invasion and misuse of privacy, saying that it is against the Constitution. They want the funds diverted towards more productive projects

Moneylife Digital Team

Already under heavy criticism, the UID (Unique Identification Number), or Aadhaar as it is called now, has more flak coming its way. Human rights activists, led by advocate and activist Kamayani Bali Mahabal, have started petitioning Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh against Aadhaar, since they believe it is a gross violation of individual privacy. Their petition states that collection of highly sensitive personal data of the population without following Parliamentary procedure is unacceptable and outright violation of Article (21) of the Constitution. (No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law).

Ms Mahabal, who is petitioning online and creating awareness about this issue told Moneylife, "Parliament has not yet approved the project. The UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) has no authority to collect sensitive data and what they are doing is actually without the authority of law. There is no protocol for data protection that has been built into the law yet."

Rejecting the Aadhaar scheme completely, activists are appealing to the government to shut it down with immediate effect and divert the allocated humongous funds towards productive and needful projects.

They are arguing that the State cannot pass a law that allows invasion of privacy of its citizens. Article 13(2) supports this, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void."

The data collected and information stored in the card can lead to misuse at unimaginable levels, serving purposes exceeding its original intent. They believe it can be used to profile citizens in a country and initiate a process of racial/ethnic cleansing, on the lines of the genocide in Rwanda in 1995. Ms Mahabal argues, "Privacy law is still being made, and till it is in place, the UIDAI should not be doing what it is, and it certainly cannot be allowed to share information as it proposes to do under the 'information consent' clause in its form."

Although, the Constitution doesn't explicitly specify privacy rights, the Apex Court of India said in a landmark judgement (Unni Krishnan, J.P & Ors. Etc., versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors,) on 4 February 1993, had ruled that "This Court has held that several un-enumerated rights fall within Article (21) since personal liberty is of widest amplitude."

Introduced in the 1930s in the USA, as a way to track individuals for taxation purposes, Social Security numbers were never designed to be used for authentication—moreover, these cards don't carry biometric data. Over time, however, private and public institutions began keeping tabs on consumers using these numbers, requiring people to present them as proof of identity, such as when applying for loans, fresh employment, or health insurance. The Aadhaar whitepaper itself says, "Since it is likely that increasingly the UID will be used by several service providers (government agencies, private institutions and NGOs), it is important for a resident to be able to remember it in the absence of a token such as a card."

Condemning the wasteful expenditure spent on Aadhaar, activists are saying, "We do not want our tax money to be spent on building trade infrastructure for the undue benefit of domestic or foreign corporations taking away the bargaining power of customers." There is no reason to disbelieve that the centralised database of citizens could be misused to profile citizens in undesirable and dangerous ways.

The US, UK and Australia have shelved their proposed public ID cards after public protests. Even China withdrew the clause to have biometric data stored in its cards. A London School of Economics report has noted that "Identity systems may create a range of new and unforeseen problems. These include the failure of systems, unforeseen financial costs, increased security threats and unacceptable imposition on citizens."

Ms Mahabal concludes, "The possession of a UID can at best serve only as proof of a "unique and singular" identity and does not guarantee either citizenship or benefits. This being the case, it is strange that this scheme is touted as a step for good governance."