Everything began as a National Identity Card pilot adventure in 13 states in 2003, yet got a lift with the development of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) headed by Nandan Nilekani for yearning venture to use thumbprints and retinal yields of the world’s second greatest nation to make an excellent database. The arrangement survived the test of government. The NDA at first opposed the implementation of Aadhaar but ended up being its most prominent supporter, revering it in the Aadhaar Act of 2016 to make it necessary for getting benefits by government schemes. The world’s greatest biometrics-based identity platform, which covers roughly 88% of India’s masses, is by and by paying for itself. In 2015, the governing body appropriated Rs 61,000 crore to in excess of 300 million beneficiaries by methods of direct benefit transfer. The other side was the identification and crossing out of 16 million false ration cards and resultant investment funds of about Rs 10,000 crore. India’s 12-digit revolution is setting deep down the roots.
Aadhaar was initiated to
• To empower the citizens to benefits by various government schemes and subsidies
• To give a unique identity to the residents and utilise it as a nationally recognised identity and address proof.
• To control illegal immigration to the country
Problems with the Aadhaar card
• Biometric Authentication: The precision of biometric data is nowhere close to 100%
• Protection of Information and Data: There have been a couple of events in the recent past where sensitive and private Aadhaar identity information or statistic information has been released and made public
• Delivery and Additional Information: There is no affirmation that an individual will get his or her Aadhaar card after filing the application.
• Lack of security: Independent offices or private companies approved to gather Aadhaar data from people in general are not regulated enough regarding protection of private Aadhaar data.
• Gender-photograph, age-photograph mismatch and age, address and relationship mistake.
K.S Puttaswamy, a 92-year-old former judge was the first to challenge the government’s choice to implement Aadhar in 2012. He challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar on the grounds of breach of a citizen’s privacy. He scrutinised and questioned the program notwithstanding being rejected in the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance was selected by the government.
He was forced to get his Aadhaar card in light of the fact that the income tax department made Aadhar compulsory to file income tax.
Absence of legislative support and violation of right to privacy were the principle worries that were made reference to in Puttaswamy’s writ petition.
On August 11, 2015, while constitutional challenges to the Aadhaar pilot were being made under a three-judge bench, the Union of India fought that the standard ground of challenge – the right to privacy– couldn’t be raised, in light of the fact that the Indian Constitution did not guarantee a fundamental right to privacy. The Union of India relied on two early judgments – M.P. Sharma v/s Satish Chandra (1954, 8 judges) and Kharak Singh v/s State of UP (1962, 6 judges), which contained recognitions prescribing that there may not be a fundamental right to privacy. The Union contended that every one of the judgements which maintained the fundamental right to privacy, had been chosen by smaller benches, and were in this way not significant.
It was a direct result of this contention the Court passed the case to a higher bench.
K.S Puttaswamy v Union of India slowly drove the Supreme Court to convey the first of two verdicts in August 2017. The case was contended more than seven days under a nine-judge bench. The court ruled privacy to be an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 and other fundamental freedoms contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases were overruled.
Regardless, the reforms and improvements since its pronouncement have only battered the tall measures spread out by the Constitution Bench instead of making these rights more grounded, or despite completing them in letter and soul—citizens are up ’til now being constrained to get Aadhaar and the Justice Srikrishna Committee report was in every practical sense an undertaking at debilitating the norms so happily celebrated after the Puttaswamy judgement. The committee, set up in July a year prior under the chairmanship of Justice BN Srikrishna, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, published its report a month back, after a period of mystery secured on its considerations. Activists and legal experts have pointed out a couple of loopholes in the draft charge and the report everything considered, the most striking segment of the recommendations is its undermining of the legal principles propounded by the right to privacy judgment, with its undertakings to put digitalised economy before individual’s rights over data.
By and by, the Puttaswamy judgment was praised in light of the desire that individual rights would finally get recognised. The report, regardless, gives the state full power in the valid clash between privacy rights and the objectives of governance and security. Naturally, its affirmation altogether or even in parts by the legislature would be a travesty of justice, until the point where basic and important changes are done not just in the recommendations made by the committee yet also in the non-transparent and non-comprehensive approach grasped by it.
Nearly year later, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court heard the right to privacy case, once more. The Aadhaar Project was maintained by the Supreme Court by 4:1 majority. However, it ought to be noted that Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which enabled private information to be imparted to corporate and private entities, Section 33(2) which enabled the government to get to this information voluntarily with interests of “national security” and Section 47 which did not enable a private resident to hold up a grievance occasion when his very own information had been ruptured/stolen, were stuck down.
The crucial issues that lie at the centre of the whole Aadhaar controversy have not been really tended to by the majority judges: the probability based thought of bio metric based innovations, the dispute among algorithms and rights, the potential for state surveillance embedded in the defective Aadhaar plan, the lack of strong data protection laws, the prohibition of millions from their entitled benefits, the complete absence of responsibility and accountability of UIDAI. Justice Chandrachud (the main and only dissenting judge) has more than once hailed these issues while articulating Aadhaar as unconstitutional for these very reasons. One of his observations bear reproducing : “Dignity and the rights of individuals cannot be made to depend on algorithms or probabilities. Constitutional guarantees cannot be subject to the vicissitudes of technology.” On these crucial issues the four judges have chosen to recognise the government’s assurance, a significant display of trust and sheer sincerity given the ill repute of the present government. This ” fraud on the Constitution” as Justice Chandrachud precisely named it, has been legitimized. This is a judgment that calls out for review. The base for such review has been spread out by Justice Chandrachud: it is a strong foundation for another structure, and we can want to see it later in future, if the past is any guide. The Court has investigated its own requests from time to time: In Sowmithri Vishnu versus Union of India the Court had confirmed that adultery is e a criminal offense, while basically seven days prior it has retreated on this decision ; once more, the SC had subdued a 2013 request of the Delhi High Court which had decriminalised homosexuality, once more expected to refresh its position; in the midst of the Emergency years it shamefully held that right to life and liberty is certifiably not a fundamental right, anyway before long expected to review this later. Both statute and society are reliably creating and developing, and it is simply an issue of time before the voice of Justice Chandrachud will be heard, uproarious and clear.