Jump to content
News Ticker
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
MANOJ B. PATEL

Why are states still insisting on Aadhar card, asks SC

Recommended Posts

MANOJ B. PATEL

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to the fact that despite its ruling that governments should not insist on the possession of Aadhaar card for the disbursal of benefits under the social welfare schemes, there were states that were flouting its order.

 

 

A bench of Justice J Chelameswar, Justice SA Bobde and Justice C Nagappan expressed its concern over states acting in breach of its interim order passed in September 2013 and reiterated in March this year in this regard.

 

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Chelameswar pointed to court's earlier order asking the central and state governments and their agencies not to link the disbursal of benefits under various social welfare schemes with Aadhaar card.Read more at;

 

Why are states still insisting on Aadhar card, asks SC | Zee News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Now Central Govt. is more aggressive on linking the cards with all including IT, Bank, Gas subsidy, Ration card, voter card, MNREGA, old age pensions, Bank accounts and what not ?

Why states are not insisting is not the point ?

Taking affidavit from such states on as to how many schemes they linked AADHAR CARD after SC verdict is the point ?

That procedure must be fact finding and not casual and not questioning as to why they have been insisting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Central government has submitted an application before SC requesting to make Aadhar card compulsory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Though I am in support for such AADHAR CARD personally, but what have they stated on affidavit in the beginning of SC proceedings, what was the order of the court and their assurance, and what is their standing now (Their means: Central Govt).

Is consistency not necessary ? Is this a problem to be dragged in Court for years together by all concerned parties including SC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Appellant complaints that the wife of Shri H.N.Sharma, Alaka Sharma, an executive member of committee, who was in coma, had applied for around Rs. 80000/- from the society. The complaint is to be inquired in to.

 

Commission directed the respondent authority to consider this as complaint and furnish information u/s 70 and inquiry shall be initiated within 1 month.

 

"Respondent authority stated that the matter is pertaining to the Thrift Credit Society and does not belong to them".

CIC_SA_A_2015_000799_M_159663 (1).pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Is right to privacy a fundamental right? The NDA government raised this question in the Supreme Court Wednesday, and went on to state that the Constitution does not assign right to privacy that status. The government also asked for reconsideration of all judgments of the Supreme Court in the last two decades, which defined right to privacy as a fundamental right. As per the various judgments, right to privacy was read as fundamental rights relating to life and liberty (Article 21) or the right to free speech, movement and peaceful association (Article 19). - See more at: Where’s right to privacy? You decide, Govt tells Supreme Court | The Indian Express

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rameshverma
Appellant complaints that the wife of Shri H.N.Sharma, Alaka Sharma, an executive member of committee, who was in coma, had applied for around Rs. 80000/- from the society. The complaint is to be inquired in to.

 

Commission directed the respondent authority to consider this as complaint and furnish information u/s 70 and inquiry shall be initiated within 1 month.

 

"Respondent authority stated that the matter is pertaining to the Thrift Credit Society and does not belong to them".

 

This is a classic decision where the CIC has travelled beyond the mandate vested in the Commission under the Act. The Commission needs to restrict itself to the extent of taking a decison for or against disclosure of information. There is no point in meddling with the affairs of statutory authorities where they are required to act as per the statutory provisions of relevant Act. The PIO was correct in advising the applicant to pursue the matter under Society Registration Act. There is a need for appointing persons of good legal background to the ICs so as to avoid miscarriage of justice either to a PIO or to an applicant. CIC had no buisness to advise the PIO to treat the RTI application as complaint, then conduct an investigation and finally provide the results thereof to the applicant. Though the Ld. CIC in instant case is from legal background, yet he failed to apply the Act in its letter & spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon.Manoj,

If I remember well there is already a thread on 21st or 22nd on "Whether AADHAR Mandatory"--for continuance, please post this also there..as there is relevance and pertain to that thread.

Moderator..Sir, Kindly merge the post to AADHAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sajib Nandi

Right to privacy: SC should shut the door before Aadhaar bolts towards illegality

 

By R Jagannathan in Firstpost.com on Jul 23, 2015

Right to privacy: SC should shut the door before Aadhaar bolts towards illegality - Firstpost

 

The government's chief lawyer, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, threw a googly at the Supreme Court when the validity of the Aadhaar unique ID project was being challenged by various petitioners. At hearings yesterday (22 July), Rohatgi told a three-judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar that there was no fundamental right to privacy and cited a judgement by an eight-judge bench dating to 1954 to back his contention.

It's true, the constitution does not mention the right to privacy anywhere, and even fundamental rights - to free speech, life, movement, religion, etc - are subject to reasonable limits. The question of the right to privacy is thus likely to come much lower down in the pecking order.

Till recently, the right to privacy has been assumed to exist as an adjunct to the other fundamental rights, but now that Rohatgi has set the cat among the pigeons by pointing to a past judgment, the Supreme Court will have to grapple with this issue first. The problem is simple: while an eight-judge bench said privacy was not a fundamental right, other, smaller benches, have maintained otherwise. This shows that Supreme Court benches themselves can come to contradictory decisions. Even now, another bench is looking at Ratan Tata’s petition on the right to privacy in the Niira Radia tapes scandal, where sensitive conversations damaging to Tata (among others) were leaked to the media.

The privacy issue has become central to the debate over the legality of Aadhaar, where the government is busy collecting biometric data from residents (and not necessarily citizens) and - at some point - could use the data for ill-defined ends, including law enforcement and tracking of criminals.

Aadhaar numbers have hit close to 800 million and almost the whole of India could get covered in a few months’ time after Narendra Modi's directive to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to get a move on in this regard. The deadline was one billion Aadhaar numbers by June, but the target has been missed for various reasons. Rohatgi’s googly may be intended to give the government more time to complete the process while the Supreme Court decides the privacy issue

The Supreme Court's delayed hearings in Aadhaar imply that by the time it gets the case decided, it will be presented with a fait accompli. Even if it finally decides that Aadhaar is illegal and violates the right to privacy, it will be faced with the painful choice of asking the government to abandon something that has already been accomplished, or restricting it to optional use. Even then it will have to decide whether the data already collected has to be canned or destroyed or can still be used with restrictions.

The issue of privacy is central to Aadhaar for three reasons;

First, the centre is collecting personal biometric data of individuals without any law backing it. The UPA pushed the scheme without legislation, and the Modi government continues along the same extra legal path.

Second, UIDAI used many private parties to enroll and collect biometrics from people. There can be no guarantee that the some of the collected biometric data will not remain in private hands, leading to the possibility of misuse.

Third, even assuming Aadhaar is vital for identifying beneficiaries for welfare payments, there is no law guaranteeing that the data already with government will not be used for unintended purposes (for example, snooping on citizens) or that there will be foolproof safeguards to prevent leakage of data to unauthorised hands.

If privacy is not a fundamental right, the scope for misuse of Aadhaar data - by government or private interests - can be immense. If government is not going to be held accountable for the data it collects from citizens, it has no right to make this card all but compulsory through executive fiat.

To be sure, Aadhaar has progressed too quickly and too deeply to be fully junked. Wasting the effort would be a pity, given that it is now a primary proof of identity and more authentic than ration cards, property documents, or Pan cards.

Even as the Supreme court ponders over the possibility of deciding whether or not privacy is a fundamental right - which could take another year - it ought to set two simple conditions for Aadhaar to remain legally valid: government must make a law for the collection of biometrics, and the law must specify the purposes for which Aadhaar data can be used and where it can never be used. It must also guarantee the privacy of the data and prescribe strong punishments for those responsible for leaking it. Compensation must be mandated for those who are compromised by this leakage.

Regardless of whether privacy is a fundamental right or something lesser, it cannot be compromised by mere executive fiat. The Supreme Court has the option of bolting the door before all the Aadhaar horses have bolted.

 

 

Also read:

 

 

Right to Privacy a fundamental right? You decide, Centre tells SC

 

Right to Privacy a fundamental right? You decide, Centre tells SC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature but not beyond the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Two threads meged.

 

Warning given to member @MANOJ B\. PATEL

 

Infraction of 10 points for 24 months given to member @MANOJ B\. PATEL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

OK, thank you very much for infraction. I was surprised since 2, 3 days that why yet am i not given any infraction? But thanks to R/Prasad sir for his gesture for repeatation about thread. Hon'ble Karira sir always says that; " I have already informed you earlier that just by increasing your post count, no one on the portal is going to give you a Gold Medal.

I am a living example of that and can assure you that I have never got any Gold Medal or award or anything else from this portal !"

 

JO DIN RAAT KAAM KAREGA USISE HI BHUL HOGI, JO KAAM NAHI KAREGA USISE TO BHUL HO HI NAHI SAKTI. YE to achha hay ki ham tankhah pe kaam nahi karte varna tankhah kat jaati. Dusare seniors ki kitani bhul huyi hay vo yadi aap janana chaho to maine pichhale ak saal ki collect kar rakhi hay, bata sakta hu. Sab ko jalan hi hoti hay. May God bless to you all. JAY HIND. GOOD BYE.

 

AND WHY FOR 24 MONTHS ONLY, KEEP IT UP TO MY PANCH MAHABHUT'S BODY DISAPPEAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Moderator, do not delete my above post, let all members read it. Members are requested to see " Ranking" Mera yogdaan aap jaan paoge". Ham to do mahine pahale hi nikal jaanevale the lekin fir Hon'ble Karira sir ne PM bhejkar naa bola isliye ruk gaye the. Naa lena, naa dena, sirf majduri!! Aur uparse infraction dekar "AAPKA RATION PAANI BANDH KIYA JATA HAY"!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon Manoj,

Whenever there is a duplicate post, the member who noticed has a duty to bring the attention to moderator. If you remember, you have also many times advised members to avoid too many threads for same issue. Except doing it as duty, and that also for continuation of discussion in same thread of Aadhar, I do not have any other motives at any time in my mind.

I do not know what is infraction, and what are it's effects.

Infact, I realised later that the topic/thread you have posted... infact requires more indepth study as to Personal information is a fundamental right or not as it is directly connected to RTI also and one can use the same arrow against govt for giving exemptions of larger public interest to those exemptions. Further some institutions are exempted except for information on corruption/violation of human rights.

This thread you have raised needs an elaborate discussion, and I hope that your thread will be separated, and infraction may also be withdrawn in view of the importance of such discussion whether personal information is a fundamental right, particularly SC's definition on what amounts to personal information.

My submission is that when what information can not be withhold from Parliament, that should not be exempted as per RTI Act. So, when Govt says that personal information is not a fundamental right, we have some ground to stand and repeat the same wording to Govt till IC finds it otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Let us all hear the verdict of SC to know what is exactly fundamental right.

Edited by G.L.N. Prasad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

The Supreme Court may take time to decide upon existence or non-existence of the “right to privacy”. The Aadhaar project should not be scrapped.It should be implemented with safeguards to prevent the misuse of biometric data.Read more at;

 

Right to privacy must be safeguarded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

All threads under the same subject/title have been merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rahul ji

i give appropriate information from the rti site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      When can you complain to CIC under RTI Act. Details here https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/second-appeal/complaint#mode-of-filing-a-complaint-to-cic

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy