Moneylife: Pune: Sunday,
March 30, 2014.
Has Nilekani
or Congress party ever informed that its biometric Aadhaar is going to be used
for surveillance and security? Also is this the reason why very few MPs, MLAs
and ministers from Congress have subjected themselves to biometric profiling of
Aadhaar or NPR?
On 24 March
2014, the Supreme Court’s bench of Dr Justice BS Chauhan and Justice J
Chelameswar heard Mohan Parasaran, Solicitor General of India et al as
petitioners and upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following order,
“Issue notice. In addition to normal mode of service, dasti service, is
permitted. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. In the
meanwhile, the present petitioner (Unique Identification Authority of India
-UIDAI) is restrained from transferring any biometric information of any person
who has been allotted the Aadhaar number to any other agency without his
consent in writing. More so, no person shall be deprived of any service for
want of Aadhaar number in case she is otherwise eligible or 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
matter i.e. WP(C) No.494/2012.”
The Court was
hearing the special leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2524/2014 i.e. UIDAI Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) that was earlier mentioned before the Chief
Justice of India. This case has now been linked with the previous case Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 against the biometric identification based
unique identity (UID)/ Aadhaar number.
An RTI
application was filed in UIDAI with a request that ‘kindly ensure all pages are
intact including annexures marked ‘Non-Disclosure Agreement”, “Technical Bid”
and “Commercial Bid”. In a reply dated 5
March 2014, the UIDAI replied, “The Annexures J, & K w.r.t. to Accenture
Service Pvt Ltd mentioned Technical Bid and Commercial Bid. The annexures I, J
& K w.r.t to L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Private Limited
mentioned-non-disclosure Agreement, Technical Bid and Commercial Bids’.”
It further
states, “As per Confidentiality Disclosure statement, the document contains
confidential information of above firms and they have requested not to disclose
the information outside UIDAI or be used for purposes other than the evaluation
of their business capabilities. Secondly, this being third party information,
the firms were requested for their comments wherein they had denied for sharing
of their documents with any applicant.” The RTI application was filed by
Qaneez-e-Fatemah Sukhrani.
It may be
recalled that Central Information Commission (CIC) had heard the matter of
UIDAI's refusal to share copy of all contracts given to French and US biometric
technology companies, namely, L1 Identity Solutions and Accenture. Mrs Sushma
Singh, the Information Commissioner, gave a letter (No.F12013/096/2012-RTI
-UIDAI) of UIDAI to the author who represented the appellant, Mathew Thomas
from Bangalore.
UIDAI’s
letter written to CIC submits that "contractual obligation in respect of
BSP (Biometric Solution Provider) contracts has expired. Therefore, UIDAI has
no objection in sharing the following contract details:- a) Copy of contract of
UIDAI with M/s L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology; and b) Copy of
contract of UIDAI with M/s Accenture for Biometric Technology".
Following
this, UIDAI gave the copies of the contract. After examining these documents
with regard to the Accenture for Biometric Technology, it has come to notice
that the first 237 pages appear to be in order but after that there is a one
pager titled Annexure J Technical Bid Technical Bid as submitted by Accenture
Services. The Technical Bid document is missing. After that there is a one
pager titled Annexure K Commercial Bid Commercial Bid as submitted by Accenture
Services Pvt Ltd. The Commercial Bid document is missing.
With regard
to the L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology, I notice that the first
236 pages appear to be in order but after that there is a one pager titled
Annexure I Non-Disclosure Agreement as submitted by M/s L1 Identity Solutions
Operating Company Private Limited. But this document is missing. After that
there is a one pager titled Annexure J Technical Bid as submitted by M/s L1
Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited. The Technical Bid document
is missing. After that there is a one pager titled Annexure K Commercial Bid as
submitted by M/s L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited. The
Commercial Bid document is missing.
In a letter
dated 10 September 2013 to UIDAI, the author wrote that reasoning that because
"contractual obligation in respect of BSP (Biometric Solution Provider)
contracts has expired. Therefore, UIDAI has no objection in sharing the
following contract details :- a) Copy of contract of UIDAI with M/s L1 Identity
Solutions for Biometric Technology; and b) Copy of contract of UIDAI with M/s
Accenture for Biometric Technology"
is flawed in the light of the previous attached judgment of CIC.
Under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO) cannot
deny information citing commercial confidence for agreements between a public
authority and private party. While giving this judgment, CIC said “The claim of
'commercial confidence' in denying access to agreements between private parties
and the masters of the public authorities—citizens—runs counter to the
principles of the Right to Information.”
“Any
agreement entered into by the government is an agreement deemed to have been
entered into on behalf of the and in the interest of ‘We the people’. Hence if
any citizen wants to know the contents of such an agreement he is in the
position of a principal asking his agent to disclose to him the terms of the
agreement entered into by the agent on behalf of the principal. No agent can
refuse to disclose any such information to his principal,” the CIC said in its
order dated 27 July 2009.
The
Commission was of the view that “The objectives of the RTI Act would be
defeated if public authorities claim exemption based on a claim that ‘terms and
condition were much more favourable to the government’, and therefore these
must be kept away from the Public. In fact public feels that quite often the
contrary is the case,” the CIC noted. The CIC observed, “Any so called
imaginary moral or reciprocal obligation cannot be permitted to subvert a
solemn constitutional and legal obligation”, and directed the PIO to provide
copy of the agreement.
In the light
of the CIC’s order, UIDAI’s refusal to share ‘Non-Disclosure Agreement”,
“Technical Bid” and “Commercial Bid” in its reply dated March 5, 2014 is
untenable.
In the
contract agreement between the President of India, as purchaser and L1 Identity
Solutions Operating Company, as a "Biometric Solution Provider" it
has been officially admitted that the latter is a corporation of US based in
Delaware as of 24 August 2010. Notably,
L-1 has since been bought over by French corporate conglomerate, Safran Group
after the US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was
convinced that there are no unresolved national security concerns with respect
to the transaction. L-1 Identity Solutions announced agreement to be acquired
by Frenh corporate entity Safran on 20 September 2010.
From the
contract agreement between the President of India, as purchaser and Accenture
Services Pvt Ltd as a "Biometric Solution Provider" dated 1 September
2010 it is evident that it has not been disclosed that Accenture Services Pvt
Ltd is a subsidiary of Dublin, Ireland based Accenture plc, a US company. Till
1 January 2001 it was known as Andersen
Consulting.
As a
consequence of French corporate conglomerate Safran’s purchase of US company
L-1 Identity Solutions, the de-duplication contracts of UIDAI’s Centralized
Identities Data Repository (CIDR) and Home Ministry’s National Population
Register (NPR), which was given to
foreign companies on 30 July 2010 to three companies now lies with two
companies of French and US origin namely, Safran Group and Accenture.
L-1 has been
a US company that admittedly worked with intelligence agencies of the US. Now
it has been purchased by French company, Safran Group in which French
government has a stake and it also has forty year partnership with China. The
latter is a US company that works admittedly with security agencies of the US.
UIDAI was
asked whether there has been any fresh agreement between UIDAI and Safran Group
and its subsidiaries. It also wants to know as to who are all the biometric
solution providers after the expiry of the “contractual obligations” with L-1
Identity Solution and Accenture.
The UIDAI had
stated in its reply dated 23 December 2013 that the Appellant's data had not
been shared with any entity outside the UIDAI.
Here appellant refers to CJ Karira, who had filed an RTI application
seeking information about the same. In a reply of 13/16, January, 2014, UIDAI
stated that “the data would be shared only on a formal request by the State
concerned through the Nodal Departments for the delivery of welfare and public
services and schemes of the Government.”
This is factually incorrect.
Nandan
Nilekani, former unelected head of Aadhaar related projects and committees
attempted to mislead Indian voters in general and particularly from Bangalore
South constituency in a write-up dated 24 March 2014. Nilekani, a Congress candidate, wrongly
claimed, “The Supreme Court has upheld the UIDAI’s view. We have always stated
that the data collected from residents would remain private, and not be shared
with other agencies.”
The documents
accessed through RTI reply dated 25 October 2013 reveal that this is an
impudent misrepresentation of facts. In the contract agreement between the
President of India for UIDAI, as purchaser and L-1 Identity Solutions Operating
Company, and Accenture Services Pvt Ltd accessed through RTI it is stated,
"The Data shall be retained by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd not more than a
period of seven years as per Retention Policy of Government of India or any
other policy that UIDAI may adopt in future."
This clearly
implies that all the biometric data of Indians which has been collected so far
is now available to US Government and French Government because of Patriot Act
and French government’s stake in the company in question.
This Congress
candidate states, “In its very first strategy document and in subsequent
conversations, the UIDAI had clarified that while other government agencies
have the option to make the number mandatory, the UIDAI itself will not make
the Aadhaar number mandatory. Over the past year, some government agencies made
the Aadhaar number mandatory for specific services and benefits.”
The fact is
all these government agencies made biometric Aadhaar number mandatory based on
the recommendations of Committees headed by Nilekani himself. UIDAI itself
was/is maintaining that Aadhaar is 'voluntary' while its chairman, the
Congressman made sure that it was made mandatory to avail a number of services
or benefits from the government.
The Strategy
Overview document of the UIDAI says that "enrolment will not be
mandated" adding, "This will not, however, preclude governments or
registrars from mandating enrolment" but the stark fact is Nilekani
himself headed several committees whose recommendations made Aadhaar mandatory."
In his
statement dated 24 March 2014, Nilekani, the Congressman, claimed, “The
argument was that making Aadhaar mandatory enables agencies to weed out fakes
and duplicates in their systems, thus reducing corruption.” This was the
argument of the government in which he was a cabinet minister ranked official
and he was himself recommending it. Nilekani is indulging in verbal gymnastics
and is trying to hide behind a veil of language.
Nilekani
claims, “The power of Aadhaar as an anti-corruption tool stems from its
uniqueness. A unique number linked to an individual’s biometrics means that no
one else can pretend to be the person receiving benefits, and therefore cannot
defraud him or her.”
The fact is
that he has himself revealed in the US that biometric Aadhaar is a tool for
surveillance. Not surprisingly, lower court of Goa and CBI sensed it.
Delivering a
lecture at Center for Global Development at Washington on 22 April 2013
Nilekani admitted, “Now, biometrics has a big history in the world. Biometrics
was first used in India in the 1870s, when the British used it for land
titling, and they also used people's fingerprints to record the registration of
documents. Historically, and up until a few years ago, the use of biometrics
was essentially in forensics. It was about using biometrics for crime
investigation and crime protection… But, after 9/11, biometrics has
increasingly been used for the purpose of surveillance, or security, or for
immigration control.”
Has Nilekani
or Congress party ever informed fellow congressmen or compatriots that its
biometric Aadhaar is going to be used for surveillance and security etc.? Is
Congress Party ignorant of the fact that on 16 August 1908, in a public protest
under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, certificates based on biometric data
like fingerprints were burnt?
Nilekani
claims, “It is increasingly the people most interested in diversion and
continuing corruption, who will be most resistant to using Aadhaar for
services.”
A list of the
names of Congress MPs, MLAs and ministers who are promoters of Aadhaar to
reveal in writing as to who all among them have enrolled for Aadhaar and
subjected themselves to biometric profiling. It is the Congress party’s MP’s,
MLAs and ministers “who are the people most interested in diversion and
continuing corruption.”
The claim
that “Aadhaar is the first identity for a lot of Indians across the country” is
factually incorrect. Indians have 16 pre-existing identity proofs endorsed by
the Election Commission of India including voter ID cards. Congress, as a
party, which got 89.11% of its money from unaccounted sources and unnamed
sources, will have us believe unlike the Election Commission, that all the
parliamentary elections and those who were elected, were voted without Indians
having any identity.
Now that
these scandalous facts that have pernicious implication for the life and death
of India as a sovereign nation-state, it is intriguing as to why while
opposition parties like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and CPI, CPM and Aam Aadmi
Party (AAP) leader Medha Patkar have denounced biometric Aadhaar but refrained
from promising that they will scrap Aadhaar and UID number generating NPR
related programs because it is manifestly illegal. It is baffling as why
instead of dealing with the issue of world’s biggest biometric database matter
urgently, it has been listed for hearing on 28 April 2014 after the sixth phase
of the nine phase election on 24th April is over.
.JPG)
.JPG)
