BSP Chief’s Mayawati’s opposition to Congress-BJP promoted biometric UID/Aadhaar related schemes is in public interest

BSP Chief’s Mayawati’s opposition to Congress-BJP promoted biometric UID/Aadhaar related schemes is in public interest

Biometric data based UID/Aadhaar can be used for genocide, holocaust & violence against minorities

BSP should promise unsigning of UID/Aadhaar related MoU with UIDAI coz it promotes genetic determinism and digital casteism

Claims about biometric data based UID/Aadhaar deeply unscientific and illegitimate

Demonstrating her stance with regard to 12 -digit biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chairperson Mayawati continues to oppose BJP led government’s promotion of Aadhaar and related schemes like Public Distribution System (PDS). She had expressed her opposition to Aaadhaar based Direct Cash Transfer which was bulldozed by Congress led government during 2014 Lok Sabha elections as well. Biometric profiling based identification schemes like UID/Aadhaar are inherently dangerous because it tracks individuals based on their religious, behavioural and/or biological traits. History is replete with examples wherein such profiling has been used for genocide, holocaust and violence against all kinds of minorities.

The promoters of biometric UID/Aadhaar Number are promoting digital caste system and digital racism. Jacob Appelbaum, computer security researcher, hacker, activist, and a spokesperson for WikiLeaks has warned, biometric Aadhaar/"UID will create a digital caste system because going by the way it is now being implemented, if you choose not to be part of the system, you will be the modern-day equivalent of an outcast. In theory, you are supposed to have the freedom to choose but in reality, the choice will only be whether to be left out and left behind".

If biometric identification under Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 is deemed legitimate then there is a logical compulsion for the Court to declare The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 as redundant because the latter provides for a government limited by law and the former provided for a government made unlimited by law as far as indiscriminate human profiling is concerned.     

It is evident that the advertising and public relations blitzkrieg unleashed by identification and surveillance technology vendors have clouded the minds of legal fraternity. The dangers of trusting such technological advances for determining social policies will consequent in a situation where “[A] warrant requirement will not make much difference to a society that, under the sway of a naive and discredited theory of genetic determinism, is willing to lock people away on the basis of their genes” among other adverse effects.

Vindicating her position after Jammu & Kashmir High Court now Karnataka High Court in its order dated February 10, 2017 has endorsed the order of Chief Justice of India 5-Judge Constitution Bench Supreme Court dated October 15, 2015 which has been reiterated by Division Bench of Hon'ble Court's by order dated February 6, 2017 on UID/Aadhaar and mobile connection maintains the status quo. Attorney General submitted to the Hon'ble Court that it is not mandatory contrary to what has been reported in the media. The orders are attached.  

Prior to this a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed an order that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory. Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench headed by the then Chief Justice A K Sikri (currently a judge of the Supreme Court) had passed an order March 2, 2013 after hearing a matter challenging a circular making UID number mandatory. The moment Court raised questions of laws, the circular was withdrawn by the central government. The decision underlined that UIDAI’s UID/Aadhaar project is illegitimate and indefensible. When it is made mandatory it is legally assailable. Notably, West Bengal Assembly passed a unanimous resolution against UID/Aadhaar Number related scheme in supreme public interest. The English Translation of West Bengal Assembly Resolution on Aadhaar dated December 2, 2013 is attached.

It may be recalled that 3.57 crore signatures were submitted against Aadhaar/UID to the Prime Minister on March 14, 2012 on by a political party. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in its report placed before Parliament on December 13, 2011 observed that UID/Aadhaar project has been conceptualized “with no clarity of purpose” and “directionless” in its implementation, leading to “a lot of confusion”. The Standing Committee also observed that while framing of relevant law is under way, the continuance of the project is “unethical and violation of Parliament’s prerogatives”.

 BSP Chief ought to pay attention instances wherein UP Government is making the UID/Aadhaar Number as a requirement for filling in the Online Application form for Uttar Pradesh Joint Entrance Examination (Polytechnic) – 2017 at Column No. 17 as part of the first step (Field Name). The Information Brochure is here:  http://www.jeecup.org/pdf/revised_brochure_19122016.pdf 

Besides this in January 2017, a notification has been issued in UP to make every aspirant applying for the Uttar Pradesh State Entrance Exam (UPSEE) 2017 to provide their Aadhaar number, without which no application will be accepted. The notification comes after the announcement from Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam Technical University (AKTU) Uttar Pradesh, which will be hosting the state level entrance test. The examinations will be held on April 16, 2017. Candidates must provide their Aadhaar number besides other details such as scanned photograph and signature, details of Classes 10, 12, and proof of education qualifications. BSP should announce scrapping of UID/Aadhaar related schemes because it is bring grief to the people.    

The attached Statement from Dr M.Vijayanunni, former Registrar General of India & Census Commissioner against UID/Aadhaar and the URLs of statements by 17 eminent citizens, 21 concerns citizens and declarations from different states seeking halting of the biometric UID/Aadhaar number project which are given below endorse halting of UID/Aadhaar related schemes. 

With reference to gnawing concerns about UID/Aadhaar Number being made mandatory, it is instructive to observe that Election Commission of India is the only agency that has complied with the Supreme Court’s orders in letter and spirit. There is a compelling logic for the Court to consider passing an order to follow the order of the Election Commission as a template should. The Commission revised its order dated February 27, 2015 on August 13, 2015. Its revised order reads: “All further activities relating to collection/feeding/seeding of Aadhaar Number being undertaken currently under NERPAP shall be suspended with immediate effect till further directions from the Commission. In other words, henceforth no more collection of Aadhaar Numbers from electors or feeding/seeding of collected Aadhaar data shall be done by any election authority or officials connected with the NERPAP.”  NERPAP stands for National Electoral Rolls Purification & Authentication Programme. The revised order is available at
http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/Current/NERPAP-AADHAAR_14082015.pdf

It is noteworthy that authorities have failed to appreciate that “several countries including the US, the UK, Australia, China, Canada and Germany have tried such projects but aborted them midway as impractical. The US –arguably the most surveillance prone society in the world – passed a Federal law requiring the States to allow the Federal Department of Homeland Security to access State databases such as drivers’ licences and motor vehicle registration but failed to implement the same.”

BSP Chief ought to pay considered attention over these questions:

· Will foreign companies like Ernst & Young, Safran, L1 Identities Solution and Accenture that admittedly work with US security and intelligence agencies who were awarded contracts on 30 July, 2010 for implementation of aadhaar/UID Number protect US national interest or India's national interest in the aftermath of Patriot Act taking cognisance of disclosures by Edward Snowden and Wikileaks?

· The manifesto titled *“2083: A European Declaration of Independence” *brought out by Norwegian gunman and neo-Crusader, Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the heinous attacks on his fellow citizens is actually a unique identity manifesto as well. This manifesto refers to the word "identity" over 100 times, "unique" over 40 times and "identification" over 10 times. There is reference to "state-issued identity cards", "converts’ identity cards", "identification card", "fingerprints", "DNA" etc. Is it not true that only a misanthrope can approve of it?

It is apprehended that the Aadhaar/UID project is going to do almost exactly the same thing which the predecessors of Hitler did, else how is it that Germany always had the lists of Jewish names even prior to the arrival of the Nazis? The Nazis got these lists with the help of IBM which was in the 'census' business that included racial census that entailed not only count the Jews but also identifying them. At the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, there is an exhibit of an IBM Hollerith D-11 card sorting machine that was responsible for organising the census of 1933 that first identified the Jews. Instead of following Court’s orders State Governments are unthinkingly compelling couples to get UID/Aadhaar for getting their marriage registered and for various other purposes.

It is submitted that the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Court in the ‘UID/Aadhaar’ matter, i.e. Justice (retd.) K.S. Puttuswamy v. UOI & Ors., WP (C) No. 494/2012 and related petitions are quite relevant in this regard. It is noteworthy that UID/Aadhaar scheme is presently under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide a batch of petitions led by W.P (C) 494/2012 and the Hon’ble Court after hearing the parties has passed a series of interim orders starting the 23rd September 2013 and the last of which was
passed on 15.10.2015 which, inter alia, states as follows:  

“4. We impress upon the Union of India that it shall strictly follow all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from 23.09.2013.

5. We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other.”

In the related case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRl) 2524/2014 Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) passed an order dated 24.3.2014 which reads as follows: “More so, no person shall be deprived of any service for want of Aadhaar number in case he/she is otherwise eligible/entitled. All the authorities are directed to modify their forms/circulars/likes so as to not compulsorily require the Aadhaar number in order to meet the requirement of the interim order passed by this Court forthwith. Tag and list the matter with main mater i.e. WP (C) No. 494/2012.”

Hon’ble Court’s order makes it clear that UID/ aadhaar remains voluntary. Therefore, no one can be asked to produce UID/Aadhaar for disbursement of all Government subsidies/Scholarships/Fellowships which are to be disbursed directly into the beneficiaries' account.

The facts relevant to UID/Aadhaar are as under:

I.         UID/Aadhaar cannot be made compulsory because of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court;
II.         Passage of the Act by Parliament does not automatically imply that any agency can make UID/Aadhaar compulsory disregarding Hon’ble Court’s orders;  
III.         Even after notification of 'coming into force' of Aadhaar Act 2016 UID/Aadhaar, it cannot be made compulsory unless Hon’ble Supreme Court waives its order on request from the Union of India especially given the fact the Hon’ble Court has reiterated its order on 14 September 2016

Besides the fact that UID violates human rights, right to privacy as well as other Constitutional rights, the application of UID/Aadhaar is compromising national security. The entire information of the residents of Bihar which will include all related statistics of theirs will be stored online and on cloud and it will be available to everybody across the globe. Besides application of UID/Aadhaar is making personal sensitive information of residents to transnational foreign companies like M/s L1 Solutions of Safran Group, Accenture, Ernst & Young.

Online UID/Aadhaar database, the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of UIDAI is one of the most vulnerable databases. The making of CIDR is contrary to the principle of decentralisation in cybersecurity. Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016) lists breaking into CIDR as an offence but this law criminalises a technological impossibility. In a bizarre act, it provides that only UIDAI can file a complaint when the data of a resident of India is misused or abused instead of the victim of abuse.

As per Section 47, “Courts will take cognizance of offences under this Act only upon complaint being made by the UIDAI or any officer authorised by it.” This deprives the victim of a right to file complaint although Section 34 of the Act provides that “Impersonating or attempting to impersonate another person by providing false demographic or biometric information will punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, and/or fine of up to ten thousand rupees.”

Victims cannot file complaint even when someone changes or attempts to change any demographic or biometric information of an Aadhaar number holder by impersonating another person (or attempting to do so), with the intent of i) causing harm or mischief to an Aadhaar number holder, or ii) appropriating the identity of an Aadhaar number holder although it is punishable under Section 35.

Victims of abuse cannot file complaint in cases wherein collection of identity information is done by one not authorised by this Act, by way of pretending otherwise despite the fact that the Act makes it punishable under Section 36.

Unless authorized by UIDAI or any officer authorised by it, victims cannot file complaint even when there is “Intentional disclosure or dissemination of identity information, to any person not authorized under this Act, or in violation of any agreement entered into under this Act” under Section 37 although it is punishable.

Unless authorised by the UIDAI, the intentional acts like accessing or securing access to the CIDR; downloading, copying or extracting any data from the CIDR; introducing or causing any virus or other contaminant into the CIDR; damaging or causing damage to the data in the CIDR; disrupting or causing disruption to access to CIDR; causing denial of access to an authorised to the CIDR; revealing information in breach of (D) in Section 28, or Section 29; destruction, deletion or alteration of any files in the CIDR; stealing, destruction, concealment or alteration of any source code used by the UIDAI , will be punishable under Section 38. Even in such cases victims cannot file complaint without authorization by UIDAI.

Section 39 of the Act reads, “Tampering of data in the CIDR or removable storage medium, with the intention to modify or discover information relating to Aadhaar number holder will be punishable”.  Thus, it admits that such acts are possible and imminent but the Act does not empower the victims of such tampering or removal instead it empowers UIDAI.  While Section 40 makes “Use of identity information in violation of Section 8 (3) by a requesting entity will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine up to ten thousand rupees (in case of an individual), and fine up to one lakh rupees (in case of a company)”, it is incomprehensible as to how a company or an individual feel deterred by such meager punishment when they can harvest big database of personal sensitive information which is admittedly a “national asset” and “rich asset”.

In a stark admission of the involvement of foreign locations and persons, Section 44 states that the Act “will also apply to offences committed outside of India by any person, irrespective of their nationality, if the offence involves any data in the CIDR.”

In significant development Supreme Court’s orders in the aftermath of the enactment of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 has ensured that Court’s order making UID/Aadhaar voluntary prevails.  

In a disturbing development, Secretary Department of Defence Production has been asked to introduce Aadhaar enabled Biometric Attendance System in the department of defence production. The system would enable an employee with an Aadhaar number to register his/her attendance (arrival/departure) in the office through biometric authentication. It also says that a web based application software system will enable online recording of attendance and that the dash board relating to real time attendance and related statistics, can be viewed by everyone.

Central Government has informed Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) that “Aadhaar is being used for Biometric Attendance System and this does not form part of Defence application”.  The fact is that the application of biometric UID/Aadhaar was restricted to ‘civilian application’ and was not meant for defence application. Central Government’s Biometrics Standards Committee had categorically stated that UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian application” but the order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has been extended to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first adopted by USA’s Department of Defence. It has subsequently been pushed through World Bank’s etransform Initiative in partnership with France, South Korea, Gemalto, IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and Pfizer. L1 was a US a company when it got a contract from UIDAI but it got purchased by French Conglomerate Safran Group after security clearance by US Government. This constitutes breach of national security as no such clearance was granted by Government of India. Some of these companies have partnership with Chinese Government as well.

The entire information of the employees working in the department of defence production, which will include related statistics, will be stored online and on cloud will be available to everybody. Besides application of UID/aadhaar in the Department of defence production not being in national interest making it available to everyone and on the cloud, including to the foreign companies like Safran Group, its L1 Solutions, Accenture and Ernst & Young will violate the order of Hon’ble Court.  It is evident that the coverage of defence employees
under Aadhaar enabled Biometric Attendance System does establish conclusively that it Aadhaar is being put to defence application contrary to the claim of the government.

Central Government argues, “Attendance of Govt. employees is already being maintained and the Biometric Attendance System, maintained by the attendance.gov.in is just digital equivalent of the age-old attendance register. This is part of contractual relationship between the Public Servant and the Employer, viz. the Government of India, wherein the former has consented to/agreed to the terms of service and is therefore, contractually bound to follow the rules and regulations as specified for him by his/her employer.”

It will have us believe that there is no difference between “age-old attendance register” and UID/Aadhaar enabled Biometric Attendance System.

In order to comprehend the sophistry involved in such averments, it is germane to recall the intervention of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in the case wherein Indian students in USA were made to wear radio collars. NHRC ensured that the government acted to ensure that the human rights of students are protected. It is germane to note that radio collar is based on biometric data like voice print. If making Indian students wear biometric radio collar constitutes an act which Government of India admitted as an act of violation of human rights, indiscriminate biometric profiling is also an act of violation of human rights. As per Section 2 (G) of Aadhaar Act 2016, “biometric information” means photograph, fingerprint, Iris scan, or any other biological attributes specified by regulations. Thus, it clearly includes biological attributes like voice print and DNA.

 If UID/Aadhaar enabled Biometric Attendance System is indeed a “digital equivalent” of “age-old attendance register”, why did NHRC object to radio collar which can also be argued by sophists to be “digital equivalent”. If the “digital equivalent” means biometric equivalent as well then it makes DNA based identity and attendance will also be deemed equivalent to “age-old attendance register”. It is quite evident that such claim is deeply misleading. There is a logical compulsion for withdrawing the letter and all consequential letters by which UID is made applicable to defence application i.e. Department of Defence Production in the interest of supreme national security.

Notably, UID policy was first adopted by US Department of Defence followed by NATO. In a related development Pakistan is making biometric identification mandatory for purchase of sim cards for mobiles. The data which was collected by Pakistan’s National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was transferred to US agencies according to Wikileaks. It is also apprehended that the foreign companies which are involved in Pakistan’s biometric identification program are also involved in India’s biometric UID/Aadhaar program.

It is possible that such civilian and non-civilian applications are being bulldozed by some commercial entities in order to store and read biometric and DNA script of Indian population in the aftermath of the sequencing of Human Genome for epigenetics, medicine, big data, social control, inheritance, eugenics and genetic determinism.

Government of Uttar Pradesh had signed the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on August 16, 2010 for the implementation of UID/Aadhaar. The revised order of the Election Commission is a model order. It demonstrates how to comply with Court’s order in letter and spirit. BSP Chief should promise to scarp UID/Aadhaar. UP Govt and its agencies which are implementing UID/Aadhaar related schemes and systems are under a legal obligation to issue order on the lines of Election Commission. In view of the concerns about genocidal ramifications of biometric profiling and political tattooing of minorities of all ilk there is a logical compulsion to unsign the MoU which has been signed by the State Government with UIDAI to pave way for other States to emulate.