UIDAI banned its two vendors who were found selling Aadhaar data to private firms and also collecting money from people for enrolling into the scheme. However, both vendors are still very much active

Moneylife Digital Team

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which has been permitted by the Union government (without any constitutional authority) to tag all residents in the country, is finding it difficult to rein in its vendors who for a few more rupees are selling data collected for UID or Aadhaar number scheme to private firms.

According to media reports, in October, the UIDAI banned Madras Security Printers Pvt Ltd and Alankit Assignments for sub-contracting work to other vendors. The Andhra Pradesh state government also received several complaints against both the vendors for misuse and sale of data to private firms. Some sub-contractors of Madras Security and Alankit are also accused of collecting Rs200 to enrol and issue acknowledgement receipt from people in Ranga Reddy, Chittoor and East Godavari districts of the state.

Despite a confirmation of these allegations against these vendors in a report prepared by the AP government, there is no action and both Madras Security and Alankit continued to enrol people for Aadhaar numbering scheme.

According to some experts, the issue may have to do with late payments by the UIDAI. “Data was sold several months ago. Other agencies are doing the same. Cashflow problems—UIDAI is a poor pay master,”  said one of the experts.

Another expert feels that in trying to outsmart ‘smart cookies’ like Madras Security and Alankit, the UIDAI shot itself in the foot. He said that in order to make Aadhaar ubiquitous, several agencies, including the UIDAI itself, have been spreading rumours that without the UID number everyone would be denied services like cooking gas. This created a rush and in order to try and jump the queue, many people have registered with different registrars. It resulted in the registration payments being paid up to somebody other than the one whose data was recorded. “Of course, having said that, I suppose one recognises that ‘faith’ itself is in question, with UIDAI,” the expert added.

Earlier in September, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had expressed reservation on Aadhaar as it felt that the scheme could lead to discrimination. “Since the Aadhaar number is to be used and applied ‘for delivery of various benefits and services’, a citizen who does not have one may be denied access to these, while a resident, who may not be a citizen, would have access if he had obtained an Aadhaar number,” the NHRC said.

The NHRC’s remarks were in response to its views sought by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance headed by Yashwant Sinha on National Identification Authority of India (NIA) Bill introduced in  December 2010.

The Bill seeks to constitute a statutory authority and lay down its powers and functions, besides deciding the framework to issue the UID or Aadhaar numbers. Yet, the government and the UIDAI have gone ahead implementing the scheme and issuing Aadhaar numbers without any constitutional validity as yet.

According to an expert, the government is the executive not empowered by the Constitution to implement projects spending public money without legislative sanction. “In the case of the UIDAI, while the executive may appoint anyone to head it, the government is legally constrained from implementing the project and issuing Aadhaar numbers,” the expert said.

While some activists, like advocate Kamayani Bali Mahabal had started petitioning the prime minister, others like VK Somasekhar, founder-trustee of Grahak Shakti and Col (Retd.) Thomas Mathew of Citizens' Action Forum have sent legal notices to UIDAI and the Planning Commission questioning their “illegal” activities in implementing the UID project, or Aadhaar, without any legal authority to do so.

The NHRC has also expressed similar concerns raised by a section of activists that the stored bio-metric information could be tampered with. “The possibility of tampering with stored biometric information cannot be ruled out, though the Bill sets out the precautions envisaged,” it said.