The Aadhaar verdict: Misplaced belief in checks and balances
The majority verdict is nuanced - but one gets a sense that the honourable justices have put too much faith and trust in an ideal world than the real world we live in.
- Sep 27, 2018,
- Updated Sep 27, 2018 3:47 PM IST
The Aadhaar verdict is out - all 1448 pages of it - and while the dissenting opinion of Justice D Y Chandrachud is the one that everyone fighting against it had hoped for, the majority opinion of Chief Justice Deepak Misra, Justice A K Sikri and Justice AM Khanwilkar tries to achieve a fine balancing act between government's requirements and the individual's need for privacy. (The opinion penned by Justice Ashok Bhushan largely agrees with the majority verdict).
The majority verdict is nuanced - but one gets a sense that the honourable justices have put too much faith and trust in an ideal world than the real world we live in. The verdict is too dependent on the assumption that the government and interested private parties will not try to find loopholes and workarounds to achieve what they were trying to earlier.
Consider two simple cases where the verdict clearly says Aadhaar linking is not necessary - for getting mobile connections and for opening bank accounts. By early evening, worthies in the two sectors had already started looking at ways and means of still continuing with Aadhaar eKYC verification. The work around was relatively simple - they could make Aadhaar eKYC voluntary, not mandatory. But those who allowed the use of Aadhaar would get quick service - while those who chose other means of identification would have to wait. For example, if you wanted a new SIM - you would get one and it would be activated immediately if you used the Aadhaar option. If you gave any other identity proof, the wait could be 15-20 days as executives turned up at your home and then gave their assent to the connection.
Ditto for bank accounts. And I suspect ditto for a whole host of other services and other service providers who would want your Aadhaar identity.
Then there is the belief - misplaced in my opinion - that the government would not exclude those without Aadhaar from government benefits. In practice, there are hundreds of examples where people have been denied rations and other government benefits because the machines for verification failed. The assumption that the government machinery is actually going to make sure that benefits reach even those who do not have Aadhaar or whose biometrics are not matching is far too trusting in my opinion.
There are also other issues that it stayed silent on - why is Aadhaar needed at all for filing income taxes? Will Aadhaar really cut down on fake PANs or tax evasion? Experience so far should make one suspicious of this.
Similarly, what happens to the private parties who have already collected your Aadhaar details and the details of thousands of others which are floating around because of leaks and other issues? The belief that it will not be misused is also based too much on trust in the system.
As a result, the Aadhaar verdict is finally a half way house - and my worry is that it will do nothing to stop the abuse of Aadhaar.The Aadhaar verdict is out - all 1448 pages of it - and while the dissenting opinion of Justice D Y Chandrachud is the one that everyone fighting against it had hoped for, the majority opinion of Chief Justice Deepak Misra, Justice A K Sikri and Justice AM Khanwilkar tries to achieve a fine balancing act between government's requirements and the individual's need for privacy. (The opinion penned by Justice Ashok Bhushan largely agrees with the majority verdict).
The majority verdict is nuanced - but one gets a sense that the honourable justices have put too much faith and trust in an ideal world than the real world we live in. The verdict is too dependent on the assumption that the government and interested private parties will not try to find loopholes and workarounds to achieve what they were trying to earlier.
Consider two simple cases where the verdict clearly says Aadhaar linking is not necessary - for getting mobile connections and for opening bank accounts. By early evening, worthies in the two sectors had already started looking at ways and means of still continuing with Aadhaar eKYC verification. The work around was relatively simple - they could make Aadhaar eKYC voluntary, not mandatory. But those who allowed the use of Aadhaar would get quick service - while those who chose other means of identification would have to wait. For example, if you wanted a new SIM - you would get one and it would be activated immediately if you used the Aadhaar option. If you gave any other identity proof, the wait could be 15-20 days as executives turned up at your home and then gave their assent to the connection.
Ditto for bank accounts. And I suspect ditto for a whole host of other services and other service providers who would want your Aadhaar identity.
Then there is the belief - misplaced in my opinion - that the government would not exclude those without Aadhaar from government benefits. In practice, there are hundreds of examples where people have been denied rations and other government benefits because the machines for verification failed. The assumption that the government machinery is actually going to make sure that benefits reach even those who do not have Aadhaar or whose biometrics are not matching is far too trusting in my opinion.
There are also other issues that it stayed silent on - why is Aadhaar needed at all for filing income taxes? Will Aadhaar really cut down on fake PANs or tax evasion? Experience so far should make one suspicious of this.
Similarly, what happens to the private parties who have already collected your Aadhaar details and the details of thousands of others which are floating around because of leaks and other issues? The belief that it will not be misused is also based too much on trust in the system.
As a result, the Aadhaar verdict is finally a half way house - and my worry is that it will do nothing to stop the abuse of Aadhaar.