The 2010 Memorandum between UIDAI and West Bengal when CPI-M ruled the state may be read here.

On Sunday, February 18, media reported how Mamata Banerjee, chief minister (CM), West Bengal had lashed out at the Union Government on cases of thousands of Bengal residents receiving letters from branch offices of the UIDAI “de-activating their Aadhaar cards. Sanmarg a portal had also carried reports on Saturday.

Today, Tuesday, February 20, Dr Gopalkrishna, in an open letter to Mamata Banerjee has, while welcoming her move urged how and why, after the Supreme Court’s verdict of September 26, 2018 and November 13, 2019, in the aftermath of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (as amended in 2019), there is a logical and legal compulsion for States to un-sign their MoUs with UIDAI.

The professor points out that these MoUs were signed in the pre-Aadhaar Act era and continued to operate in the era when unconstitutional Sections like Section 57 of Aadhaar Act was recognised and declared as unconstitutional and illegitimate by the Supreme Court’s verdict of September 26, 2018 and by the deletion of Section 57 by the amendment of 2019 in Aadhaar Act. The verdict of November 13, 2019 recognised that the entire Act is unconstitutional.

Section 57 of un-amended Aadhaar Act, 2016 stated that “Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual for any purpose, whether by the State or anybody corporate or person, pursuant to any law, for the time being in force, or any contract to this effect”.

Section 25 of the Amendment Act 2019 states that Section 57 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 has been omitted with effect from July 24, 2019.

This MoU signed between the West Bengal government & UIDAI “is outdated and it imperils the autonomy of the State and the citizens. Your considered intervention will pave the way for other States to act on this MoU which is facilitating unlimited and indiscriminate mass surveillance and mass spying at the behest of World Bank’s eTransform Initiative and its partners since 2010. “

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) welcomes your letter to Hon’ble Prime Minister on the subject of “Aadhaar is becoming inactive” in defence of the natural and fundamental rights of fellow citizens.

Dr Gopalkrishna’s Open Letter to CM West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee:

“I submit that a 7-judge Constitution Bench has been constituted to declare it to be so in order to adhere to judicial discipline. The fact remains no sane person will wait for formal announcement of poison to desist from consuming poison.

Aadhaar Act is a poisonous law.

“It is a black law akin to the colonial law which was bitterly resisted by Mahatma Gandhi’s first Satyagrah. Our Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has declared this law to be a fraud on the Constitution of India in his order dated September 26, 2018. He has reiterated it on at least two more occasions. In this backdrop, constitutional, legal, judicial and political imagination creates a logical compulsion to resist this law which creates an architecture of unlimited government based on 360 degree surveillance. It is eroding the constitutionally mandated autonomy of States beyond repair.

“I submit that West Bengal’s Home Department signed the attached MoU with UIDAI on July 1, 2010. Shri A.G. Ghosh, OSD & ex-officio Special Secretary signed it on behalf of Home Department, West Bengal Government and Shri Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Deputy Director General, UIDAI, Planning Commission signed it on behalf of UIDAI.

“This MoU is outdated and it imperils the autonomy of the State and the citizens. Your considered intervention will pave the way for other States to act on this MoU which is facilitating unlimited and indiscriminate mass surveillance and mass spying at the behest of World Bank’s eTransform Initiative and its partners since 2010.

“Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) welcomes your letter to Hon’ble Prime Minister on the subject of “Aadhaar is becoming inactive” in defence of the natural and fundamental rights of fellow citizens.

(Source: https://www.livehindustan.com/national/story-why-aadhaar-is-becoming-inactive-west-bengal-mamata-banerjee-wrote-a-letter-asking-for-reply-from-pm-9346756.html)

Reference articles by Dr Gopalkrishna:

“India’s First Metadata case: Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench to decide illegitimacy of Aadhaar Act amid Great Data Robbery” (https://mainstreamweekly.net/article13958.html), “India’s First Metadata Case and Pegasus – Part 2” (http://mainstreamweekly.net/article14053.html) and India’s First Metadata case: Mass Surveillance, Mass Spying and Unending Census Part 3 (http://mainstreamweekly.net/article14196.html) provides robust argument in this regard.

Having worked on the subject since 2010, I will be happy to share more details regarding the illegitimacy of Aadhaar Act. ”

Background provided by Dr Gopalkrishna (excerpted from his articles):

Metadata ability to redefine human existence in ways which are yet fully to be perceived. Justice DY Chandrachud, in the November 2019 judgment before he assumed office as CJI, drew on the paper of Christina Moniodis titled “Moving from Nixon to NASA: Privacy’s Second Strand- A Right to Informational Privacy”. Dr. Chandrachud cites her with approval. He states that metadata “results in the creation of new knowledge about individuals; something which even she or he did not possess. This poses serious issues for the Court. In an age of rapidly evolving technology it is impossible for a judge to conceive of all the possible uses of information or its consequences.”

Also drawing from the Yvonne McDermott’s paper “Conceptualizing the right to data protection in an era of Big Data”, Dr. Chandrachud observes, “The contemporary age has been aptly regarded as “an era of ubiquitous dataveillance, or the systematic monitoring of citizen’s communications or actions through the use of information technology”. It is also an age of “big data” or the collection of data sets. These data sets are capable of being searched; they have linkages with other data sets; and are marked by their exhaustive scope and the permanency of collection.”

The (2019) verdict refers to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Tele2 Sverige AB vs. Post-och telestyrelsen (2016) wherein it was seized with the issue as to whether in light of Digital Rights Ireland, a national law which required a provider of electronic communications services to retain meta-data (name, address, telephone number and IP address) regarding users/subscribers for the purpose of fighting crime was contrary to Article 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The CJEU struck down the provision allowing collection of such meta data on grounds of lack of purpose limitation, data differentiation, data protection, prior review by a court or administrative authority and consent.

Here are some reasons for scrapping Aadhaar databases scheme and repealing Aadhaar Act (as enunciated by Dr Gopalkrishna):

1. The majority order of the Supreme Court’s 5-Judge Constitution Bench on September 26, 2018, has pointed out that the UID/Aadhaar Number project and NPR project are part of the one database convergence scheme. NPR has been mentioned at least on eight occasions in the order to underline the same. A centralized database is the most vulnerable entity in the digital world. The leakage of the database of UK’s children has revealed the old maxim, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, has been given a very public burial”. This has been thoroughly debunked. This maxim is attributed to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Database State, a report from the UK, states: ‘In October 2007, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Department) lost two discs containing a copy of the entire child benefit database.’ Only blind faith in a Utopian State can persuade people to think that they have nothing to fear after trusting their personal sensitive information to a Database State and non-State actors like Safran, Ernst & Young and Accenture.

2. One of the earliest documents that refer to UIDAI, a 14-page document titled ’Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd for the government envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s Aadhaar would have with the electoral database. The use of the electoral database mentioned in Wipro’s document remains on the agenda of the proponents of UID/Aadhaar.

3. The 41-page Wikileaked document titled ’Creating a unique identity number for every resident in India’ that declared itself to be a ’Confidential- property of UIDAI’ reveals that from day one the Union government wanted to create a file on each of “1.2 billion residents”, the division of work between Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)’s NPR and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY)’s UID/Aadhaar was/is merely an attention diversion tactics to outwit citizen’s scrutiny.

The ongoing merger of the electoral database with UID/Aadhaar number debunks UIDAI’s claim in the confidential document that UID/Aadhaar number “will not contain intelligence” and “the location of the person. “From these disclosures, it seems that the government has adopted an adversarial role vis-a-vis Indians and acting beyond its constitutional mandate in order to pander to the interests of the commercial czars, non-state actors and foreign intelligence companies.

4. In an RTI reply dated October 25, 2013, UIDAI shared a truncated contract agreement with Ernst & Young. The contract agreement states that “the Unique ID will be a random 12-digit number with the basis for establishing uniqueness of identity being biometrics”. It announces that “we will provide a Unique Identity to over 113.9 crore people.”

This is evidently a fraudulent announcement because UIDAI with which the agreement has been signed had the mandate to provide Unique Identity to only 60 crore residents of India, and not to 113.9 crore people.

It is evident that while the government kept Ernst & Young informed about its motive, it kept states, citizens, the parliament and the Supreme Court in the dark. The contract agreement reveals that “biometric systems are not 100 % accurate” and “uniqueness of the biometrics is still a postulate.” This admission pulverizes the deceptive edifice on which MEITY’s UID/Aadhaar and MHA’s NPR rests.

5. Section 57 of un-amended Aadhaar Act, 2016 stated that “Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual for any purpose, whether by the State or anybody corporate or person, pursuant to any law, for the time being in force, or any contract to this effect”.

It implies that UID/Aadhaar of “over 113.9 crore people” has been shared with foreign private body corporates like Ernst & Young. It is only after the horse had escaped the barn that the door was closed through Section 25 of Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 in compliance with the Court’s order dated September 26, 2018.

Section 25 of the Amendment Act 2019 states that Section 57 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 has been omitted with effect from July 24, 2019.

6. At paragraph 8 of the majority order authored by Justice A K Sikri, it is recorded that “a Processes Committee was set up on July 03, 2006, to suggest the process for updation, modification, addition and deletion of data and fields from the core database to be created under the Unique Identification for BPL Families project.

This Committee, on November 26, 2006, prepared a paper known as ’Strategic Vision Unique Identification of Residents’. Based thereupon, the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) was set up on December 04, 2006, to collate the National Population Register under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Unique Identification Number project of the Department “of Information Technology.

Subsequently, “a Committee of Secretaries was formed. The said Committee gave its recommendations which were discussed by EGoM. After approving the Aadhaar Scheme in principle, it instructed the Cabinet Secretary to convene a meeting to finalise the detailed organisational structure of the UID.

After considering the recommendation of the Cabinet Secretary, Notification No. A-43011/02/2009-Admn.I was issued on January 28, 2009, by the Government of India which constituted and notified the UIDAI.” Annexure 1 of this notification that constituted UIDAI deals with the Role and Responsibilities of UIDAI. The fourth point in this notification reads: “implementation of UID scheme will entail” taking “necessary steps to ensure collation of NPR with UID (as per. approved strategy)”.

7. The minutes of a meeting of the Committee of Secretaries held under Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary November 23, 2015 talks of “integrating the twin approaches under NPR and Aadhaar.”

The “integrating the twin approaches under NPR and Aadhaar” which is referred here is the same as taking “necessary steps to ensure collation of NPR with UID (as per. approved strategy)” underlined in the notification mentioned in the Aadhaar Act.

8. A Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated July 19, 2019 states that “The National Population Register (NPR) thus prepared, was seeded with Aadhaar number during its updation exercise in 2015 along with a collection of demographic details of new household members. Approx. 60 crores Aadhaar numbers have been seeded in NPR Database.”

This communication discloses that “It has now been decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs to update the existing NPR database during April 2020 – September 2020 along with House listing & Housing Census phase of Census 2021. While updating the NPR, the Aadhaar number of all the individuals whose Aadhaar number is not available in the NPR Database will also be collected along with various other items. Necessary notification for updating NPR in 2020 will be issued shortly.”

9. The Court’s order reveals that “A core group was set up to advise and further the work related to UIDAI…The core group, inter alia, decided that it was better to start with the electoral roll database of 2009 for undertaking the UIDAI project.” If an UID/Aadhaar-enabled Biometric Attendance System is indeed a ‘digital equivalent’ of an ‘age-old attendance register,’ why did the National Human Rights Commission object to a radio collar which can also be argued by sophists to be a ‘digital equivalent’? It may be recalled that the Union Ministry of External Affairs had agreed with the NHRC’s assessment. The Union minister of external affairs informed Parliament that some 18 students were detained and released in the US with radio monitoring devices on their ankles, pending completion of investigations for possible involvement in irregularities. ’We have also strongly protested the radio collars as unacceptable, which should be removed immediately.’ If the ‘digital equivalent’ means biometric equivalent as well, then radio collar and DNA-based identity and attendance will also be deemed equivalent to ‘age-old attendance register.’ It is quite evident that such claims are deeply misleading.

10. The reference to ‘such other biological attributes’ in Section 2 (g) of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, and the definition of ‘biometrics’ under the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 under section 87 read with section 43A of Information Technology Act, 2000 underlines that it includes ‘the technologies that measure and analyse human body characteristics, such as “fingerprints”, “eye retinas and irises”, “voice patterns”, “facial patterns”, “hand measurements” and “DNA” for authentication purposes.’ It is abundantly clear that the plan of UID/Aadhaar-based surveillance does not end with the collection of fingerprints and iris scan, it goes quite beyond it.

The confidential document of UIDAI reveals that “One way to ensure that the unique identification (UID) number is used by all government and private agencies is by inserting it into the birth certificate of the infant. Since the birth certificate is the original identity document, it is likely that this number will then persist as the key identifier through the individual’s various life events, such as joining school, immunizations, voting etc.” Notably, there has never been any occasion wherein there was an all-party meeting to seek the consent of all the political parties with regard to merger of UID/Aadhaar database with “electoral roll database”. It is evident that the provision of Electoral Bonds in the Companies Act, 2013 and the merger of Voter-ID Number and Aadhaar Number through amendment in Aadhaar Act is an exercise in merger of electoral database and Aadhaar database which will lead to extinction of political and civil rights of present and future generations.

According to Dr Gopalkrishna, Justice Sikri authored order of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench missed the opportunity to save present and future Indians from the dictatorship of faceless donors created through Finance Act 2017 and Finance Act 2018 which has compromised national security and almost all the public institutions. He has made citizens and natural persons residing in India naked and transparent in a legal system in which artificial persons, the opaqueness of body corporates has been legalized. The order committed a Himalayan blunder by ruling that right to have natural and human rights of citizens can be made conditional. This is being done by the government at the behest of the beneficial owners of ungovernable technology companies who have turned ruling political parties into puppets through their limitless and anonymous transnational donations.

This creates a compelling reason for the States to un-sign the MoUs they have signed with UIDAI and discontinue both UID/Aadhaar and NPR exercise. This is required to resist the emergence of an unlimited government, unlimited by the Constitution of India and Constitutionalism. Aadhaar database scheme is an unlimited census in disguise. It is naturalising mass surveillance and mass spying in myriad disguises and through diverse kinds of fish baits.

There is a compelling logic for setting up a High Powered Commission of Inquiry to probe the ongoing bartering of citizen’s databases and transfer of national data assets to foreign entities. In the face of assault on citizens’ rights and the emergence of a regime that is making legislatures and judiciary subservient to automatic identification, big data mining and artificial intelligence companies, the order of Justice Sikri undermined the Constitution and the sovereignty of the citizens who framed it. If the flawed order is not reversed by the 7-judge Constitution Bench, India’s social policies will be guided by biometric and genetic determinism and eugenic thinking of beneficial owners of unaccountable and admittedly undemocratic institutions.

In a country where no intelligence chief or official has been held accountable for the assassination of three of its Prime Ministers and for betraying the nation’s secrets, can it be hoped that all those who have compromised India’s data security will be made liable for their treacherous acts of transferring the sensitive data of present and future citizens including ministers, legislators, soldiers, and judges?

(The author, Dr. Gopal Krishna is a lawyer and law and philosophy researcher. He had appeared before the Parliamentary Committee that examined the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 that was withdrawn in 2016 and enacted later as Aadhaar Act 2016)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia

Related:

Mamata Banerjee attacks Union Govt, says Aadhaar cards being rejected en masse in Bengal

New “advisory on Aadhaar as date of birth proof soon

CJP EXCLUSIVE: How the Union of India took a giant step towards both NPR & NRC in 2015 without informed consent

West Bengal Assembly next in line to pass resolution against CAA

After Kerala, Punjab Assembly passes resolution against CAA

WB becomes first state to declare it will skip NPR meet in Delhi

Kerala passes resolution for withdrawal of CAA

The post Logical, Legal Compulsion for West Bengal, other states to un-sign MoUs with UIDAI: Expert to Mamata Banerjee appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Around 50 Aadhaar cards have been rejected in Burdwan’s Jamalpur. Similar things are happening in Birbhum, North 24 Parganas, Burdwan and several other districts,” Banerjee said while speaking at a programme in Birbhum.

Banerjee, was also warning people against the CAA. She said, “During elections, you (BJP) are shouting for CAA. Once Aadhaar cards of people get rejected, bank accounts will get delinked and you will not get back your citizenship before five years. You are already citizens of this country.”

She warned the populace to stay away from the “citizenship trap”, saying everyone is already a citizen of the country and has Aadhaar cards, voter identity and ration cards. “Now, if Aadhaar cards get rejected, people will not get money in their bank accounts from the state in various state-run schemes. This is the ploy of the Centre to stop our funds reaching the common people,” Banerjee said while expressing her apprehensions. She directed the administration to create a portal where people, whose Aadhaar cards have been rejected, can register. “We will look into the matter and the administration will take necessary steps. We will send the money to the beneficiaries at any cost,” she asserted.

Aadhar De-Activation

CJP received several panic calls from West Bengal on Saturday, February 17 when about 60 persons from Jamalpur in Burdwan district reported that their Aadhar cards had been unilaterally, without notice been de-activated. This action was reported by the Sanmarg portal and was taken by the Ranchi branch of the UIDAI on Jamalpur block In Burdwan.

The portal reports that as many as 50 residents of the Jamalpur block’s Abujhati Gram Panchayat have received such letters as also Jogram. This de-activation would seriously affect rations, banking access etc. The letters reportedly stated that it is as per Rule 28 that the de-activation has taken place. The fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had made an announcement on “implementing CAA before the elections” has doubled citizens’ concerns.

Related:

West Bengal Assembly next in line to pass resolution against CAA

After Kerala, Punjab Assembly passes resolution against CAA

WB becomes first state to declare it will skip NPR meet in Delhi

Kerala passes resolution for withdrawal of CAA

The post Mamata Banerjee attacks Union Govt, says Aadhaar cards being rejected en masse in Bengal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the start of the hearing, as reported by LiveLaw, the counsel appearing for petitioners, Senior Advocate Biswajit Deb submitted that while citizens whose names had been mentioned in the first National Register of Citizens (NRC) list had received their Aadhar Cards, the same was not the case for those whose names had occurred in the second list.

In response, Attorney General For India, R. Venkataramani sought two weeks to look into the matter and said, “ “These look like legitimate claims. As an interim measure if there is something, that can be looked into. I can come back in two weeks.“

Accordingly, the CJI granted him two weeks and added that a note also may be submitted so that issues in the matter could be collated and looked at. The matter is now listed for 9th November 2022.

At the last hearing in the matter, the court had issued notice to the Union Government, the Registrar General of India, Unique Identification Authority of India(UIDAI) and the State of Assam in the petition which was filed by All India Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Dev.

The petition filed through Advocate-on-Record Tulika Mukherjee states that though the people whose names were included in the Final List tried to apply for Aadhar Cards, the UIDAI rejected their applications. It was stated that the petitioner received representations from several people who were not able to obtain Aadhaar cards. Arguing that the denial of Aadhaar cards to persons included in the second list amounts to discrimination and arbitrariness resulting in the infraction of Article 14, the plea states:

“It is submitted that by not providing the Aadhar numbers to the people appearing in the Final list dated 31.08.2019, there has been creation of a class within a class, as the people in the Final Supplementary List are being treated differently from the people whose names appeared in the First Draft List on 31.12.2017. It is submitted there exists no bar with respect to people whose names appeared in the First Draft List and in the subsequent NRC List on 31.08.2019. It is submitted that both sets of people are equal in the sense that their names appear in the NRC and therefore, should be meted out equal treatment with respect to their rights which arise from their registration under the same.“

The petition also submitted that once a person had been registered under the NRC, whether it be in the First Draft List or the Supplementary List, they were entitled to the same benefits as that of any Citizen of India, and therefore, there existed no intelligible differentia between persons whose names appear in the NRC.

Further, the petition argues that there existed no bar under the Aadhar Act to deny Aadhar number to persons whose names appeared in the Final Supplementary NRC list released on 31.08.2019. The only criteria laid down under the Aadhar Act was that the person should have been a resident of the Country for a period of 182 days or more in the preceding 12 months prior to filing an application. Finally, as the Aadhar Number was not a proof of citizenship, grant of Aadhar would have no bearing on the effect of the object and purpose of the Citizenship Act.

CJP in Assam

CJP’s unqiue and widespread humanitarian work in the state of Assam has led to documentation of over 600 specific such cases where those included in the NRC are waiting in vain for t their Aadhar enrolment. The impact? They cannot open a bank account, enrol in schools neither are they entitled to any benefits under government schemes. The state government even told the state assembly that 27 lakh persons are thus excluded.

Thousands in Assam who have made it to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) are waiting to enrol for Aadhaar more than 14 months after the list was published in 2018. The issue has brought back into focus the controversial Rs 1,600-crore citizenship registry, the fate of which is now in limbo. 

What happens when you are not issued an Aadhar?

The unique ID, commonly known as Aadhaar, is linked to a 12-digit number. Over the years, it has become an important tool of identification. Officials say they receive several complaints every day from citizens on the issue. Many others have taken to social media to convey how they are suffering in the absence of Aadhaar.

The background: NRC

Of the around 33 million applicants who filled up forms to get their names included in the registry, around four million could not make it to the draft list, which was published in 2018.These rejects had the option of filing claims for inclusion in the register. There was another provision to file complaints or objections against those who had their names in the draft list of the register. To simplify this complex process, the state government, the Centre and the office of the state coordinator of the NRC came up with a standard operating procedure.

The standard operating procedure (SOP), meanwhile, made it mandatory for all those who were part of the claims and objections exercise to submit their biometric details.

“During the hearings of claims and objections, the State Government, in collaboration with the UIDAI, will undertake the process of biometric enrolment of all the applicants of NRC. The biometric enrolment in respect of persons who are part of claims and those persons objected upon will be distinctive and separate ID will be generated. Once the final NRC has been published such persons who are included in the NRC will be given the usual Aadhaar number as applicable to legal residents in the country. In case a person already has an Aadhaar number who is also a part of the claim or objected upon, his Aadhaar number will be obtained.” The Supreme Court approved the SOP on November 1, 2018.

As reported by Sabrangindia, it was ssam government’s Home and Political Department were appointed as registrar for the exercise. It was given the responsibility to undertake biometric enrolment of NRC applicants part of the claims and objections exercise. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which issues the 12-digit unique identification number commonly referred to as Aadhaar, was roped in to provide technical support. The biometric data collected during the exercise has been stored in UIDAI servers.

On August 31, 2019, the NRC authorities published a final list of the NRC, bringing down the number of rejects to 19,06,657. The ones whose claims were successful should have been automatically allotted their Aadhaar numbers as per the Supreme Court order. But the process is still stuck in bureaucratic red-tape.

Why are the Aadhaar numbers, three years down, not being issued?

Responses sought from the Assam government have gotten bureaucratic responses: that is, because the application receipt numbers (ARN) of the NRC applicants who have made it to the NRC list on August 31, 2019, have not been shared with the UIDAI authorities. The list of those who have made it to the NRC list is available with the NRC authorities who work under the Registrar General of India (RGI). The UIDAI authorities need access to these ARNs to start allotting Aadhaar.

While Assam government officials claim that they have raised the matter with the RGI, mentioning complaints from several of those denied. UIDAI authorities have stated that they will start generating the Aadhaar once they know the ARN of those who are in the final NRC list. The controversial state coordinator of the NRC Hitesh Dev Sarma, also spelt out in a communication that the unique ID can be issued to all the NRC applicants since it is not a proof of citizenship. However, it is the political conundrum –generated by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre and state –which is questioning the NRC process and its outcome itself that has apparently delayed and complicated things. Making the lives of 27 lakh persons a further misery.

Politcal posturing is again, resulting in basic rights denials to the citizenry, in Assam.

Related:

Assam Police shot dead 12-year-old returning from Aadhaar centre!

Aadhaar number mandatory to get govt benefits, subsidies: UIDAI

SC directs Aadhaar cards be issued to sex workers without insisting on the residential proof

The post “Claims Look Legitimate”, AG to Supreme Court on plea seeking Aadhaar Cards for those included in the NRC list appeared first on SabrangIndia.