Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Stop #Aadhaar- What you can do

Sign Petition to Chief Justice of India 

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Chife_Justice_of_India_Stop_Mandatory_Aadhaar_for_services/share/?new

We the undersigned  request  Chief Justice of India  to stop the Government of India to continue committing contempt of court by implementing in each and every way , that it is doing inspite of Supreme Court’s order in the matter.  Aadhaar is  cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by the apex court one way or the other We request you to urgently hear the pending Aadhaar PILS

Draft letter you can send to your MP to request they take up amending Aadhaar Rules which are in parliament (drafted by Saurabh Bhatt)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Subject: Mandatory Use of -Aadhaar in Violation of Orders of the Supreme Court and Lacunae

in Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016

We write to about the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016 [hereinafter, Aadhaar

Regulations] that have currently been laid before each House of Parliament in pursuance of Section 55

of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016

(hereinafter the Aadhaar Act), and seek to draw your attention to the lack of substantive and procedural

safeguards against exclusion of citizens through the use of Aadhaar.

At the outset, we express our profound sense of alarm at the manner in which Aadhaar has been made

mandatory, in clear disregard of Orders of the Supreme Court, for access to various entitlements,

subsidies, services, legal compliance, etc. We are constrained to point out that the Supreme Court has

repeatedly emphasised that the Aadhaar number “is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory

till the matter is finally decided by the Court one way or the other“. It must also be noted that the

Supreme Court has, through its order dated 14-09-2016, persisted with the prohibition on the

mandatory use of Aadhaar even after the passage of the Aadhaar Act. As such, insistence of mandatory

submission of Aadhaar Number for an ever-expanding list of services and activities constitutes an

unconscionable breach of the rule of law as well as contempt of the Supreme Court of India.

Even as such mandatory use of Aadhaar constitutes a violation of Supreme Court order, it also reinforces

the need for a robust, accessible, and accountable procedural mechanism for preventing misuse of

Aadhaar number and protecting citizens from denial of services due to linkage with Aadhaar. However,

the procedures envisaged by the Aadhaar Regulations fail to conform to elementary principle of fairness,

access and natural justices that have been recognized as integral part of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We

draw your attention to the following aspects in particular:

Deactivation without pre-decisional hearing

Regulations 29 to 32 of the Aadhaar Regulations provide for deactivation of Aadhaar number. In view

of the linkage between Aadhaar number and basic services, including basic services recognised as part

of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution, strict procedures with rigorous safeguard

constitute an imperative. Yet, Regulation 29 fails to provide for pre-decisional hearing to the number-
holder as a compulsory requirement. The Regulation uses the phrase “deactivation may require field

inquiry”, suggesting that has the discretion to dispense with an inquiry.

Further, clause (2) of the Regulation suggests that UIDAI may ask another agency to carry out the inquiry

and submit a report. The regulation however makes no mention of the selection process of this agency,

the qualifications of the persons carrying out such inquiry or the procedure the agency must follow.

Another cause of concern is that clause (3) of Regulation also fails to provide any guidance on the

officers within the UIDAI that would be authorised to carry out such deactivation or what procedure

they would follow prior to deactivating the Aadhaar number.

Inadequacy of Grievance Redressal

Regulation 30 of the Aadhaar Regulations require an aggrieved number-holder to pursue a complaint

through the “grievance redressal mechanism” set up under Regulation 32. Regulation 32 states that the

UIDAI “shall set up a contact centre to act as a central point of contact for resolution of queries and

grievances of residents, accessible to residents through toll free number(s) and/ or e-mail.”

However, the Regulations contain no indication about the powers of the contact centre or the

procedures it shall follow. In view of the critical impact of any deactivation of Aadhaar number and

consequent denial of services, grievance redressal mechanism must be prompt, effective and accessible.

But in the absence of both substantive and procedural norms, the mechanism envisaged under

Regulation 32 is in danger of being nothing more than a charade.

Further, the mechanism also fails the principle of access given its reliance on phones and emails. Such

a mechanism would serve to exclude those without phones or internets who even at this moment,

constitute a sizable section of our citizenry. Admittedly, clause (3) of Regulation 32 allows residents to

“raise grievances by visiting the regional offices of the Authority or through any other officers or

channels as may be specified by the Authority.” But with regional offices currently existing in mere 8

states, this option may also prove to be an illusory rope.

Levying and collecting Fees

The Aadhar (Enrolment and Update) (First Amendment) Regulations 2017 have authorised Registrars,

Enrolling Agencies and other Service Providers to collect a fee from the residents for the services

provided by them. Imposition of fees would constitute a dual burden on citizens and residents. Not only

are people being compelled to sign up for Aadhaar, they shall also be charged a fee for such enrolment.

Indeed, it seems a cruel joke being played at the cost of people of India.

In view of these lacunae, we believe that Aadhaar Regulations fail to act as a strong bulwark against

exclusion of people due to linkage of Aadhaar and other services. Therefore, we write to you and call

upon you to exercise your responsibility as Members of Parliament and request you to endeavour to

modify or annul the Aadhaar Regulations under Section 55 of the Aadhaar Act before the Regulations

become final.

Thanking you

Yours sincerely,

 

Serve contempt notice if forced to give aadhaar (drafted by Anupam Saraph)

Please ask others who face the same scene as you to complain. Do please tweet your complaints with #UIDContempt.
Here is a draft notice of contempt along with copies of the relevant orders of the Supreme Court that should be served to each agency in contempt of the orders of the Supreme Court after editing as required.
Name/Address of concerned authority that is forcing for an Aadhaar number
Dear Sir/Madam,
Subject: Contempt of Rule of Law and the orders of the Supreme Court of India
We are shocked that you have been continuing to require and use the UID number and associated data for purposes beyond that approved by the Supreme Court of India. We are also disturbed that you are mandating the requirement of the UID number. This is an unbelievable disrespect of the rule of law and of the repeated orders of the Supreme Court of India. 
Your actions have also resulted in coercing children, elderly and others alike to have to register for an UID number against their free will. Your actions also constitute an illegal functional creep that cannot be morally or legally justified. Your actions reek of creating a fait accompli before the court finally decides on the matter and hence does not uphold the promise of justice, liberty, equality or fraternity.
We draw your attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders of 11 August 2015 restricting the use of Aadhaar to PDS Scheme, for the distribution of foodgrains, and cooking fuel, such as kerosene and LPG. This was extended to allow its use for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), National Social Assistance Programme (Old Age Pensions, Widow Pensions, Disability Pensions) Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) and Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in its orders of 15 October 2015. The Court also stated that the information about an individual obtained by the Unique Identification Authority of India while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose. The use of the UID number/ Aadhaar or information associated with it for any purposes other than that allowed by the court as well as it being mandated for any purposes not allowed by the court is a contempt of the rule of law and the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 
We also draw your attention to the orders of 15 October 2015 where the Court reiterated that the UID number/Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory for the permitted uses till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other. 
We require that you immediately cease to require the UID number as your usage does not fall into the allowed uses of the UID/ We require you to end the mandatory requirement for the UID number and make the procedures for those with or without the UID number identical.
We trust you will share your compliance of the orders within 7 days, publish widely your decision to abide by the orders of the Supreme Court and not cause us to seek other remedies and relief for your failure to respect the rule of law. 
Sincerely yours,
CC 
1. Shri Nripendra Mishra, Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, 152, South Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110011
3. President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 004 email: [email protected] 
4. Chief Justice of India, ℅ Chief Justice’s Conference Secretariat, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110 201

 

DO MENTION IN COMMENTS IF YOU HAVE ACTED ON NAY OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS 

Related posts

Comments (2)

  1. K SHESHU BABU

    Time has come for Supreme Court to play a proactive role to safeguard constitution in the interest of people of the nation. It should uphold the voice of people against suppression of fundamental rights of expression and right to privacy

  2. K Venkatachalam

    Our opposition parliamentarians should more proactive in this matter of public interest

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: