Street vendors reject proposal of Identification through Biometric Aadhaar number & National Population Register

Street vendors reject proposal of Identification through Biometric Aadhaar number & National Population Register (NPR) 

Call for rejection of National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), Aadhaar, NPR and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)

 

Kolkata/New Delhi: On the concluding day of the 3 day workshop on Impact of Globalization and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) on Hawkers and various sectors, the leaders of street vendors from across the country expressed their strong disapproval of the biometric identification of street vendors through initiatives like Aadhaar/Unique Identification (UID) Number and National Population Register (NPR). Parliamentary Standing Committee on Urban Development has been misled by some NGO owners into expressing support for anti-citizen and ant-vendor biometric identification which has been deemed illegal, unethical and contemptuous of Parliament by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in its report to the Parliament on December 11, 2011.  

The participants at the workshop disapproved of NGO owners who support biometric identification through initiatives like Aadhaar/Unique Identification (UID) Number and NPR. The following Public Statement was endorsed and issued in Kolkata on April 5, 2013: 

Public Statement

Why all Freedom Loving Citizens should oppose National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), UID/ Aadhaar, National Population Register (NPR) and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)?

1.     It is a threat to privacy, civil liberties, federalism, national security, sovereignty, decentralization and constitution

2.     It facilitates emergence of a Surveillance State based on Database, Global Information Architecture for Convergence, Property based Democracy to advances corporate fascism by ‘commercial czars’ and ‘private territorial armies’  

3.     It is fraught with dangers of genocide and communal crisis through tracking and profiling akin to misuse of census data in Germany in 1930s

4.     It is guided by undemocratic international financial institutions and defence policies of other nuclear weapon holding countries

5.     The collection of biometric data is a violation of fundamental rights as it turns citizens into subjects and treats them worse than prisoners

6.     It is anti-poor and anti-citizen as it dismantles existing social service entitlements and is a tool for exclusion

7.     It promotes outsourcing of governmental functions

8.     There is an imminent danger from surveillance and identification technology companies – which are beyond national and international legal control- indiscriminately collecting biometric data like fingerprints, iris scan, voice print, DNA etc

9.     It compromises citizens’ rights of present and future generations

10.    It is an unnecessary and wasteful project for citizens as it transfers public money to private parties   

11.    It is without democratic, parliamentary, legal and constitutional sanction 

The 57 signatories of the public statement included Shaktiman Ghosh of National Hawkers Federation, Kolkata, Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Azad Hawker Street Vendor Union, Allahabad, Kshetri Tama Devi, Manipur, Ramu Bhai, Bokaro, Raj Kumar Shahin, All Punjab Rehri Union, Sunil Ghatale, Amravati, Maharashtra, Dhananjay Kumar, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, Shirish, Nagpur, R B Singh Rajpoot, Delhi, Arun Kumar Khuntia, Samblpur, Odisha, Subhash Chand, Palwal, Haryana, Brajbandhu Pradhan, Puri, Odisha, S Babu, Bangalore, Dhanpat Kumar, Bodhgaya, Bihar, R Sevvilam Paridhi, Coimbatore, A D Ameer, Vizag, Alka Senger, Allahabad, Rekha Marik, Marjina Ansari, A Jayamma, Sirisala Venkat Mohan and other leaders of street hawkers and vendors.

They rejected the recommendation “The Aadhar card may be linked towards identification of street vendors” as dehumanizing. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Urban Development has failed in its report to fathom the grave genocidal ramifications in its submitted to the Parliament on March 13, 2013.

The report was the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012 was introduced in Lok Sabha on September 6, 2012 was referred to this Committee on 10th September, 2012.  It failed to recognize the illegality of collection of biometric data.

Gopal Krishna of Citizens Form for Civil Liberties (CFCL) addressed the workshop on the ramifications of biometric profiling being pursued by Home Ministry and the Planning Commission. He underlined that it is being undertaken at the behest of World Bank’s eTransform Initiative and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to secure safe havens for commercial czars and private territorial armies through convergence of private sector, public sector and citizens sector. He expressed dismay at the ignorance of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Urban Development which does not know the difference between a 12 digit biometric identifier located in Centralized Identity Data Registry (CIDR) and NPR and pre-existing at least 15 identity proofs which give legitimacy to the Parliament and the governments.  

For Details: Shaktiman Ghosh, National Hawkers Federation, Kolkata, Mb: 08442803665

Gopal Krishna, Citizens Form for Civil Liberties (CFCL), New Delhi Mb: 9818089660

E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com 

Cobrapost Refutes The Wishy-Washy Manner In Which The RBI Deputy Governor Gives Clean Chit To Banking Majors In India

New Delhi: Cobrapost.com takes strong exception to RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty’s statement on March 21, 2013, with regard to the Cobrapost expose on the money laundering practices of HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank. Chakrabarty had said: “There is no scam (that) has happened ... As no transaction has taken place. Let us not unnecessarily downgrade ourselves. Our system to prevent money laundering is perfect ... absolutely nothing (wrong with it).”

The manner in which the RBI Deputy Governor has rushed to issue the statement, even before the Central Bank could complete the inquest it has initiated into money laundering practices by the three banks, even before these banks could complete their own investigations into the alleged misdemeanour of their officials, and even before the Income Tax Department could come up with its own finding, is tantamount to be self-serving and is a brazen attempt on the part of the Deputy Governor to not only give these banks a clean chit but also mask the miserable failure of the banking regulatory mechanism of the RBI. One gets the impression that the RBI deputy governor has taken upon himself to become the spokesperson of the three banks concerned.

Cobrapost.com thus refutes the statement of the RBI Deputy Governor, a self-laudatory exercise, as something premature, presumptive and preposterous aimed at sweeping under carpet the alleged involvement of the banking majors in money laundering.  For the RBI to say that there is no offence as there was “no transaction” is a very novice reading of the law and a willful ignorance of rules and regulations supposed to be crafted and implemented by the RBI itself.

Let Cobrapost remind RBI that India is a signatory to FATF (Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering) and has treaty obligations to block precisely the kind of money laundering that the Cobrapost expose shows has been happening rampantly in the country’s leading three private banks. Operation Red Spider by Cobrapost clearly shows that RBI and the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Finance Ministry have failed in their jobs and instead of heads rolling there the RBI is intent on diluting the nature of what has been found and saving its own skin.

Perhaps the banking regulatory and supervision functions should be taken away from the RBI and a new agency created for the same.

Cobrapost Found Clinching Evidence of Money Laundering Practices:  

It will not be out of place to recall what Cobrapost had unearthed as a result of its undercover investigation, “Operation Red Spider.” A gist of what the various bankers had suggested to help the imagined politician make his money clean would suffice:

• Accept huge amounts of cash and invest it in insurance products and gold.
• Open an account to route the cash into various investment schemes of the bank.
• Do it even without the mandatory PAN card or adhering to the KYC norms laid down by RBI.
• Split the money into tranches to get it into the banking system without being detected.
• Use “benami” accounts to facilitate the conversion of black money.
• Use accounts of other customers to channelize the black money into the system for a fee.
• Get demand drafts made for the client either from their own banks or from other banks to facilitate investment without it showing up in the client’s account.
• Keep the identity of the investor/depositor secret.
• Open multiple accounts and close them at will to facilitate the investment of black money.
• Invest black money in multiple instruments in the names of different individuals, not necessarily drawn from among the family.
• Allot lockers for the safekeeping of the illegitimate cash, including special very large size lockers to accommodate crores of hard cash.
• Personally come to the residence of the client to take the black money deal forward and collect the cash, even bring along counting machine.
•  Use provisions like Form 60 to deposit the illegitimate cash into the account to route it into investment.
• Help the client to transfer black money abroad through NRE (Non-Resident External)/NRO (Non-Resident Ordinary) account; transfer the money telegraphically or through means other than regular banking procedures.

Other than these imaginative means, the officials of these banks offered such convenient cash laundering services as the operation of lockers (with cash in them) after regular banking hours both to ensure the secrecy of the customers’ identity and to mask the nature of the transactions; make a suitable profile for the client, such as showing him as an agriculturist or engaged in some businesses, so as to make the investment unquestionable; use “sundry” accounts of the bank to deposit all the illegal cash from where it is to be routed into investment; use accounts of other customers, for a fee, to transfer money abroad or use some shell company and take away a chunk of foreign currency as expenses toward business-cum-leisure trip.

What the Law of the Land has to Say on Money Laundering?

Although the Deputy Manager has chosen to overlook these findings under the pretext that “no transaction has taken place,” challenging thus the common wisdom, a cursory look at them makes apparent the gross violation of rules and regulations, framed under various laws of the land, namely, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2000, the Income Tax Act and the Indian Penal Code, among others.

Take for example Sections 118, 119 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code which clearly establish an offence in both the scenarios: If an offence has been committed and if an offence has not been committed. If we test the Cobrapost findings on these provisions, although “no transaction” took place, their willingness to conduct transaction establishes their design of committing an offense and hence their culpability beyond doubt. The IPC also establishes concealing the design to commit as an offense and as such holds it punishable to a term defined therein. Here is what Section 120 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 says:

CONCEALING DESIGN TO COMMIT OFFENCE PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT

Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

IF OFFENCE BE COMMITTED- IF OFFENCE BE NOT COMMITTED

Shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one- fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one- eight, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

As to the sweeping statement of the RBI Deputy Governor that “Allegations do not mean flouting norms,” we can only hold the various provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 as mirror to what he claims to be “transactional issues and have nothing to do with money laundering”. Section 3 as defined in the Act 2002 emphasizes:

Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering.

The statement of the Deputy Governor of the RBI leaves one wonder if all the manner of proposals made by the bankers as enumerated above do not constitute soliciting of customers then what does, although solicitation itself constitutes the essential ingredient of Section 3 and thus a crime.

Now coming back to what the Deputy Governor says: “Allegations do not mean flouting norms.” If we take a look at the above-mentioned ways suggested by the bankers involved in money laundering, it establishes beyond an iota of doubt that the banks are brazenly flouting the KYC norms

The KYC framework is very clear and expressive. Even if an advice against the framework is given by any financial institution, it shall be considered a crime. The twofold KYC framework is:

1. To ensure appropriate customer identification
2. To monitor transactions of a suspicious nature
Branches/offices should obtain all information necessary to establish the identity/legal existence of each new customer, based preferably on disclosures by customers themselves. Easy means of establishing identity would be documents such as passport, driving licence, etc. Where such documents are not available, verification by existing account holders or introduction by a person known to the bank may suffice.
          

Section 12 of PML Act 2002 is self-explanatory as to what constitutes the gross violation of KYC norms and RBI regulations framed to prevent money laundering.

Section 12 says:

Every banking company, financial institution and intermediary shall

(a) maintain a record of all transactions, the nature and value of which may be prescribed, whether such transactions comprise of a single transaction or a series of transactions integrally connected to each other, and where such series of transactions take place within a month;

(b) furnish information of transactions referred to in clause (a) to the Director within such time as may be prescribed;

(c) verify and maintain the records of the identity of all its clients, in such a manner as may be prescribed.

Provided that where the principal officer of a banking company or financial institution or intermediary, as the case may be, has reason to believe that a single transaction or series of transactions integrally connected to each other have been valued below the prescribed value so as to defeat the provisions of this section, such officer shall furnish information in respect of such transactions to the Director within the prescribed time.

[(2)(a) The records referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be maintained for a period of ten years from the date of transactions between the clients and the banking company or financial institution or intermediary, as the case may be.

(b) The records referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be maintained for a period of ten years from the date of cessation of transactions between the clients and the banking company or financial institution or intermediary, as the case may be.

However, nowhere in the course of investigation, was the Cobrapost reporter turned away by the bankers when he declared his intent of fronting for a politician (imaginary) who wanted to launder his money.

All the conversation between the bank employees and the reporter sums up together the violation of KYC norms. Such practice further leads to the offence of Money Laundering. There are certain indicators that are supposed to be reported by the bankers whenever they find something suspicious with regard to a client or transactions done by him.  

Here is gist of all such indicators the observance of which was flouted by the bankers during the course of our investigation:

Indicators for suspicious transactions

• Customer who conducts transactions in a pattern consistent with criminal proceeds
• Unusual single or aggregate transfers
• Transaction is inconsistent with customer profile
• Routing of transfer through multiple locations or accounts or unexplained
• Transfers between accounts
• Structuring - transactions split to evade reporting
• Use of agents or associates to disguise the beneficial owner
• Transactions inconsistent with customer’s profile
• Maintaining multiple accounts without explanation
• Unexplained cash deposits in bank account
• Frequent cash transactions just under the reporting threshold
• Multiple cash transactions in multiple accounts

Non Financial Indicators

o Usage of Lockers
o Behavioural Indicators
o Customer is hurried, nervous or evasive
o Customer makes inquiries or tries to convince staff to avoid reporting
Knowledge Indicators
o Customer tries to convince staff not to complete the formalities
o Customer thoroughly aware of legal position on suspicious transaction reporting.
o Customer seems very conversant with money laundering or terrorist activity financing issues.
Transactions indicators
o Frequent cash transactions in large amounts which is not normally done by the customer.
o Small denominations frequently changed for large ones.
o Customer consistently makes cash transactions that are just under the reporting threshold amount in an apparent attempt to avoid the reporting threshold.

Accounts Indicators

o Intra bank transfer of funds - accumulated into one account for foreign remittance.
o Opening of several accounts simultaneously, some of which remain dormant for long periods.
o A third party appears to be using the account of customer.
All the bold highlighted indicators are violated or promised to be violated during our undercover investigation and thus are in sheer violation of the KYC norms.
 

Instead of hiding their failure in monitoring the activities of these banks and stopping money laundering by these banks it would have been more creditable for the RBI and other enforcement agencies to go into details of the Cobrapost expose. A thorough inquest into all aspects of the phenomenon is need of the hour, not the statement that the Deputy Governor of RBI has given, to help the nation check the scourge of money laundering.


BANKERS OWN CONFESSIONS TO THE COBRAPOST REPORTER ABOUT THEIR PAST CRIMINALITY NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. BELOW ARE A FEW EXCERPTS OF THEIR CONFESSIONS:

There are many officials of these banks, caught on camera, who confessed to being old hands in slipping in cash money into the banking system and making it clean. Here are some excerpts:

A.Mishra, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, East Delhi

“Kaiyon ka kaafi saal ho gaye hain … aisi koit dikkat nahin hoti … kaafi ache naam hain… lekin charcha nahi honi chahiye to acha hai… ye ksi bhi business ka rule hota hai…kisi ka bhi disclosure nahi hota hai

S. Srivastava, Deputy Manager (Operations); S. Kaur, Branch Head, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

“Safe hai hundred per cent hai … two hundred per cent hai … maine cases niptaye hue hain yahan pe
“Wo main karwa doongi … maine karwaye huye hain sir… don’t worry (regarding conversion of rupees 5 to 7 crore into white using the account of some company or some other accounts)

N. Gupta, Assistant Manager, Axis Bank, Panchkula, Haryana

“Humare Sir jo hain wo yahan pe three years tak branch head the Solan mein … toh jaise aise unhone bahut saari wahan pe uthai hain yahan pe uthti hain … kyunki logon ko tax saving chahiye … aur upar se jo poora white ho raha hai to wo bhi cheez hai ek …to us wajah se ab … fourth year mein yahan pe aye hain kaafi achha hai baaki ye hai ki aapko jo thodi bahut problem lag rahi hai jaise white black jo aap bata rahe hain wo aapko poora clear karenge.

A. Gupta, Assistant Vice President, Axis Bank; P. Sinha, Relationship Associate, MAX Life Insurance, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad

“Bahut saari policy daali hain … cash mein hi to daali hain … abhi pichli baar… paanch lakh rupaye cash.
“Ek pichli baar Sir pachis lakh ka karaya tha…Sir ne karaya tha white money dikha kar ke aaram se nikaal diya… returns bahut hi ache mile the

V. Juneja, Manager (Operations/Investments); S. Singh, Manager (Business Banking), Axis Bank, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

Builders ke liye toh bahut kari hai… builders ho gaye… brokers hote hai na…ek banda ITR panch lakh dikha raha hota hai wo saaal mein kum se kum panch crore kama raha hota hai …kahan jana hai paisa saara

A.K. Gupta, Branch Head; A.K. Bansal, Assistant Manager (Operations), Axis Bank, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

“Koi politics se hi related the… Bank of Baroda mein ek company jo hai NPA hui thi…us company ko unhone kharida tha….wo company thi baais crore ki… baais crore ek number ka paisa nahi hota…wo bhi cash se poora… poore process mein humne chaar–chhe mahine laga diye the… satve mahine mein case clear ho gaya tha

S. Bhattacharya, Deputy Vice President/Branch Head; T. Anand, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, South Delhi

“Humlog toh sir ek ek derh derh crore bhi karte hain… main bataoon wo log kaise karte hain…wo log na churning karte hain…jaise kuch to wo guaranteed plans le lete hain…kuch wo log daalte hain…but agar aap mutual fund mein daalenge to fir PAN card compulsory hai…ya to fir aap gold kharid lijiye

P. Bhowmik, Personal Banker, HDFC Bank, South Delhi

“Main aapko naam nahin bataungi par yahan pe saare bade accounts, bade accounts yahan pe hain, politicians ke bhi hain ... aur main kisi ka naam nahin bataoongi. Kisi ko kuch nahin pata ki kiska kya amount hai. Doosri cheez aap update karoge aap chaho to aa sakte ho banking hours ke baad … na koi dekhega kab kya kar rahe ho na. Branch mein single person rahega

A. Gupta, Sales Development Manager; M. Jain, Circle Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance, East Delhi

“Amount to aap 20 lakh kar lo 50 lakh kar lo aap ki marzi hai wo toh. Main bata to rahi hun 25, 30, 50 to aaram se uthta hai cash ka wohi bata rahi hun na. Sir adjust karna parega. Aisa hoga fir ek product mein 10 lakh chala jayega. Doosre product mein aapka 10 lakh chala jayega. Wo divide ho jayega yahan pe

K. Gerard, Branch Manager; M. Kumar, Financial Consultant, HDFC Bank, Venkateswaran K, Territory Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance, Chennai

“Bahut hai. Wohi main bol raha hun na 2005 mein main 50 lakh accept kara tha. Thoda din kam ho gaya because anti-money laundering jab se aaya, sabhi 20 lakh tak to hum log jaate hain. Isiliye 20 lakh ka humne baat hi nahin kiya. Hum aapse 10 lakh hi baat kar rahe hain taki. Aap bhi comfortable rahein hum bhi comfortable rahein. Kisi ko nahin maloom hoga

N. Mahajan, Senior Manager; Shabee, Sales Development Manager, HDFC Bank, South Delhi

“Kara hua hai na. Ek NRI tha. Usne 10 lakh rupaye ka investment kiya tha cash mein. Wo maine karwaya hua hai

S. Singh, Branch Head, HDFC Bank, Central Delhi

“Sir humnein toh, humnein jo hai Janakpuri, Rohini mein panch crore rupaye dalwaye hue hain
“Ye jo fund humara hai, ismein bhi hai, ispe humare Sir 498 crore rupaye dale hue hain, ye November tak ki hai

N. Singh, Backup Branch Manager (Branch Banking), HDFC Bank, Faridabad, Haryana

“Haan, haan, roz ka kaam hai humara. Humara roz ka kaam hai. Pehla case nahin hai ye

N. Gupta, Portfolio Relationship Manager/Deputy Manager; K. Jain, Personal Banker, HDFC Bank, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Wo to hota hi hai. Sir naam nahin batayenge. Johari Bazaar mein baithe hain to aap khud hi samajh sakte ho. HDFC Bank aur Johari Bazaar dono cheez aisi hain

A.G. Toppo, Senior Manager, HDFC, Kolkata, West Bengal

“Haan, haan… don’t worry… sub log aise hi karte hain Sir. In fact, saara jo kala paisa hota hai na sub insurance mein hi jaata hai

J. Bajaj, Branch Manager; N. Sharma, HDFC Bank, Faridabad, Haryana

“Kum hi hain. Ek–doh hain. Koi problem nahi ha
“Sir disclose nahin kar sakta, already daala hua hai. Safe hai

V. Srivastava, Privilege Banker, ICICI Bank, Central Delhi

“Haan clients wo kaafi saare hain arre aapka ye account bhi hai ek do politician account se related wo bhi dekhta rehta hun main … hain kuch achchhe jigar wale

R. Gupta, Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential, Agra

“Agar aap aisi baat karte hain toh main aapke saamne aise customers ke naam bhi khol sakta hun jo aapko bolenge ki Guptaji ke barabar jaanne wala shahar mein koi nahin hai

Gayathri, Branch Manager; C. Sridhar, Sr. Customer Service Associate (Operations), ICICI Bank, Bangalore, Karnataka

 “One customer came and invested 90 lakhs…90 lakhs cash in this table only…I have only counted that cash … yes … yes… just one month back one customer came and invested 90 lakhs… this is not the first customer.”
“Kiya hai … kiya hai
“You are not the first customer.”
“Wo sab daala hai… aap chahe toh… policy history dikha sakta hun ( Regarding any politician money)
“Humare Bangalore mein thoda kum ho gaya … Mumbai and all mein politician zyada hai … Bihar mein to politician hi daalta hai paisa insurance mein

N. Kumar, Business Manager; Aastha, Deputy Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

“Sir, ek crore bhi daala hai aur usse zyada ki bhi daala hai

Deepanshu, Branch Manager; H. Maheshwari, Assitant Manager ICICI Bank, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

“Already branch mein NRI customers aise hain jinko main de chuka hun

R. Sharma, Branch Manager, Faridabad, Haryana

“Bahut contacts hain humare aisi baat nahin hai…sabke hote hain …bas wohi hai ki hum as a bank hum kuch share na toh karte hain…aapne poocha na hum jante hain, main chahti toh chaar naam le sakti thi…par nahin le sakti hun … aaj pehli baar nahin ho rahi hai main bata rahi hoon aapko

“Saare logon ka funds jo hai ... property sell karte hain … aapko pata hi hai aaj kal sab black mein hi milta hai saara paisa, black mein milta hai, property sale proceeds karke letter le lete hain aur kar lete hain deposit kya hai…humein sirf ek letter chihiye hota hai …ki ye fund ...is … ka source of fund ye hai … as per the guidelines humare ko audit ke hisaab se ek letter rakhna hota hai

Cash mein humne kiya hua hai Sir aisa kuchh nahin hai… humne Sir account se hi debit karke diya hai … lekin account mein NRIs ke cash deposits hote hain because unhone property bechi, black mein paisa aaya, dus–dus lakh unhone deposit karaye hain humse… unhone investment kiya hai, usme koi issue nahin hai…Noida 18 mein main NRI Banking hi dekhti thi...usme property sale proceeds NRIs ki bahut aati thi ... paanch paanch crore ki property bikti thi, wo paisa kuch white mein aata tha kuch black mein aata tha. Toh black mein wo cash deposit karte hi the aur usise hum fir investment karte the us account se

R. Ranjan, Associate Key Relationship Manager; A. Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager, ICICIC Bank, South Delhi

“Haan hain clients hain … haan haan wo clients hain … daala hua hai safe hai … isiliye aapko bataya … maine pehle hi clear ki itna cash hum

A. Pathak, ICICI Lombard, Mumbai, Maharashtra

DD to jo banda rahega wo banwa dega kyunki 10 lakh ka aur 5 lakh ka pehle bhi kiya hua hai

A. Dubey, Assistant Manager, ICICI Bank, West Delhi

“Pandrah lakh ka ek kiya hai

S.Walia, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Chandigarh

“Ye bahut politicians karte hain … even jo aapke … main chalo share nahin karta … matlab karte hain kaafi
“Paanch lakh ka humne cash kiya hua hai… koi issue nahi aata usmein

Aniruddha Bahal
Editor, Cobrapost.com
March 23, 2013

- See more at: http://cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=258&cid=23#sthash.Cf2wvQha.dpuf

Attorney General’s opinion on legality of UIDAI no more valid

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)

To

Dr Manmohan Singh

Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues

Prime Minister's Council on UIDAI

Government of India

New Delhi

Shri A.K. Antony, Minister of Defence

Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under scheme of National Population Register (NPR)

Government of India

New Delhi

Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia,

Deputy Chairman,

Planning Commission

Special Invitee

Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues

Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under NPR Scheme 

Government of India

New Delhi

Shri Nandan Nilekani,

Chairman,

Unique Identification Authority of India

Planning Commission

Special Invitee

Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues

Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under NPR Scheme 

Government of India 

New Delhi

Shri R K Singh

Secretary

Union Ministry of Home Affairs  

Government of India 

New Delhi

Dr. C. Chandramouli  

Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India

Union Ministry of Home Affairs  

Government of India 

New Delhi

Date: March 24, 2013

Subject- Attorney General’s opinion on legality of UIDAI no more valid & violation of citizens’ rights from creation and collation of biometric information based UID/AADHAAR number & National Population Register (NPR)

Sir,

This is to draw your attention towards the reply of Union Minister of State for Planning, Science & Technology and Earth Sciences, Dr. Ashwani Kumar in the Lok Sabha on August 24, 2011 wherein he informed the Parliament about the commencement of operation of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) before the enactment of the National Identification Authority Bill, 2010. He replied, “The Attorney General (AG) has opined that the UIDAI could continue with its work till the enactment of the Bill.” (italics supplied)

I submit that since the minister had assured the Parliament based on the legal opinion of the Attorney General that the “UIDAI could continue with its work till the enactment of the Bill” and now since the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that has rejected The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 questioning the legality of UIDAI, UID/AADHAAR project and the act of subordinate legislation for biometric data collection, there is no legal basis for the continued work of the UIDAI.

I submit that Attorney General’s opinion provided defense of UIDAI’s work only till the enactment of the Bill. This defence too now stands exhausted.

I submit that on February 11, 2011, Shri Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, UIDAI and Shri R.S. Sharma, Director General, UIDAI besides the officials of Union Ministry of Planning had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. The report of the Committee which was presented to the Parliament on December 13, 2011 records, “The Committee took evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Planning and Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in connection with the examination of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010. Major issues discussed with the representatives included, need for providing statutory status to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI); Definition of ‘Resident‘; provision for de-activating the Aadhaar Number; collection of demographic information and biometric information; nature of enrolment and special measures for enrolment of weaker sections. The Chairman directed the representatives to furnish replies to the points raised during the sitting within one week. The witnesses then withdrew. A verbatim record of proceedings was kept.”  

I submit that the Bill introduced on 3^rd December, 2010 in the Rajya Sabha was meant for legalizing and legitimizing the ongoing work done by Planning Commission’s Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) since January 28, 2009 as is evident from clause 57 of the Bill. The rejection of the Bill reveals that UIDAI officials could not defend the legally indefensible work on UIDAI without statutory status. The Clause 57 of the Bill reads: “Anything done or any action taken by the Central Government under the Resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission bearing notification number A-43011/02/ 2009-Admin.I, dated the 28th January, 2009, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.” Since this provision along with the Bill has been rejected the UIDAI itself has become legally indefensible.  

I wish to inform you that I had given my testimony before this Parliamentary Standing Committee on behalf of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL).

I submit that the Bill stated that it was meant to “to provide for the establishment of the National Identification Authority of India for the purpose of issuing identification numbers to individuals residing in India and to certain other classes of individuals and manner of authentication of such individuals to facilitate access to benefits and services to such individuals to which they are entitled and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The Bill did not define “to certain other classes of individuals”.

I submit that responding to the question by Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, Member of Parliament, Indian National Congress from Ongole, Andhra Pradesh as to “whether there is a demand to stop the biometric enrolment of citizens till the National Identification Authority of India Bill is finalized”, the Minister replied, “Yes, Sir. The matter regarding withholding the issue of Aadhaar numbers until passing of National identification Authority Bill, 2010 was raised in the Rajya Sabha on 18.03.11 by Shri Rama Jois, MP (RS) as a Special Mention. The Hon’ble Member has also made references in this regard to the Standing Committee on Finance and to the Prime Minister’s Office.”

I also wish to draw your attention towards the acceptance of the petition of CFCL by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation with regard biometric data collection related to Planning Commission's Aadhaar/Unique Identification (UID) Number and Home Ministry's National Population Register (NPR) besides the order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in Case No. 349/90/0/2012/OC dated December 27, 2012.

I submit that the letter from Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation reads: "I have received a copy of your petition (118 pages) regarding Subordinate Legislation for Biometric Identity Card NRIC and Aadhhar/UID IS illegal & illegitimate and Constitutional, Legal, Historical & Technological Reasons Against UID/Aadhaar Scheme on 18.3.2013."

I submit that in a related development, in an order date December 27, 2012 addressed to Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has communicated human rights concerns regarding UID and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) submitted to it by CFCL. Earlier, NHRC had expressed its deep concerns and apprehensions about UID and "biometric information" in its submission before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. 

I submit that in the matter of now rejected National Identification Authority of India (NIAI) Bill, 2010, “NHRC’s views on the NIAI Bill, 2010″ in the Human Rights Newsletter (Vol. 18 No.8, August 2011) reveals that UID/Aadhaar Number has dangerous ramifications is quite relevant in this regard. NHRC’s view was presented to the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance. The PSC submitted its report to the Parliament on December 13, 2011 rejecting the UID Bill.

I submit that echoing NHRC’s view on “need for protection of information” and “the possibility of tampering with stored biometric information” in paragraph 5 (page no. 7 of the NHRC newsletter) and “disclosure of information in the interest of national security” mentioned in paragraph 9 (page no.8 of the newsletter), the Central Government’s Approach Paper for Legislation on Privacy dated October 13, 2010 admits, “India does not currently have a general data protection statute” as per information received from Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions through Letter Reference No.071/1/2010/-IR dated October 18, 2010.

I submit that on UID Number, the Approach Paper on Privacy Bill stated, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralized manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage. However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer.” The Approach Paper on Privacy Bill discloses, “Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat to the identity of citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private persons will be forever abandoned.

I submit that in their testimony before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on June 29, 2011, Shri Rajiv Sharma, Secretary General, NHRC, Shri A.K. Garg, Registrar (Law), NHRC and Shri J.P. Meena, Joint Secretary (P&A), NHRC expressed their concerns. The report presented to the Parliament on December 13, 2011 records, “The Committee heard the representatives of the National Human Rights Commission on “The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010”. The major issues discussed during the sitting broadly related to nature, objective and beneficiaries of aadhaar number; possible discrimination and specific provisions that are required to be built in; safeguards needed for securing the stored information by the proposed National Identification Authority of India; implications of the provisions of the Bill on the individual‘s right to privacy, etc.”

I submit that in a setback to efforts to bulldoze UID and related schemes, following the direction issued to the Union of India and Union Territory of Chandigarh by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Civil Writ Petition 569 of 2013 filed in the High Court against Union of India and others, the Executive Order for making Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar mandatory has been withdrawn.

I wish to inform you that in its order the bench of Justice A K Sikri, Chief Justice and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain dated February 19, 2013 had not noted that the petition “raises a pure question of law.” Since the Executive Order was withdrawn, the case too was disposed of March 2, 2013 with a two page order.  The Order observes, “In this writ petition filed as PIL, the petitioner has challenged the vires of notification issued by Union of India for making it compulsory to have UID Cards." It is further observed in the order that “Second issue raised in this petition is that vide order dated 5.12.2012, respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh has given directions to the Branch In charge Registration-cum-Accountant, office of Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh not to accept any application for registration of vehicle and grant of learner/regular driving licence without UID card.” 

I submit that such attempts to make UID/Aadhaar have emerged as an act of bullying by the government agencies.

I submit that the petition before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate legislation draws attention towards how all the residents and citizens of India are being made subordinate to prisoner’s status by the ongoing collection of their “biometric information” that includes finger prints, iris scan for permanent storage in a Centralized Identities Data Register (CIDR) and National Population Register (NPR). This is being done ‘as per an approved strategy” by Planning Commission and Union Ministry of Home Affairs without any legal mandate.   

I am attaching the following six papers for your perusal and consideration:

1. UID/Aadhaar Enrolment Form (Its Column 8 reads: "I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of welfare services".)
2. The National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2010 (Refer to Clause 57 at page no. 18 and Note on Clause 57 at page no. 29)
3. Statement of Concern on UID/Aadhaar Number (September 28, 2010)
4. Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on NIDAI Bill (Recommendations & Observations 3 (b) at page no. 30)
5. Case No. 349/90/0/2012/OC, Petition on UID & RFID (forwarded to Home Ministry on December 27, 2012 by NHRC order)
6. APPROACH PAPER FOR A LEGISLATION ON PRIVACY (Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions October, 2010)

I submit that the above documents are with reference to the recommendations dated November 4, 2008 made by the empowered group of Ministers (EGoM) that was constituted on December 4, 2006 to collate the two schemes – the National Population Register under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Unique Identification Number (UID) project, the terms of reference No. 8 of Planning Commission’s notification dated January 28, 2009 stating, “Take necessary steps to ensure collation of NPR and UID (as per approved strategy)”, deliberations of the Cabinet Committee and the setting up of Group of Ministers (GoM).

I submit that NHRC’s observation that UID/Aadhaar Number will lead to discrimination due to its distinction between residents and citizens in the name of “delivery of various benefits and services” and “weaker sections of society” is quite stark.

I submit that with regard to UID and related schemes there is a need for a feasibility study, a cost-benefit analysis, assessment of national security concerns, data theft, constitutionality of this project, including in the matter of privacy, the relationship between the state and the people, security and other fundamental rights of citizens. The Report of the London School of Economics “Report on UK’s Identity Project” inter-alia states that “.....identity systems may create a range of new and unforeseen problems......the risk of failure in the current proposals is therefore magnified to the point where the scheme should be regarded as a potential danger to the public interest and to the legal rights of individuals”. Even our Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance said, “As these findings are very much relevant and applicable to the UID scheme, they should have been seriously considered.”

It is clear that UIDAI has been set-up through an Undemocratic Process which has raised issues regarding Privacy,  Surveillance, Profiling,  Tracking and Convergence “could change the status of the people in this country, with effects on our security and constitutional rights, and a consideration of all aspects of the project should be undertaken with this in mind." 

In view of these concerns and the invalidity of Attorney General’s opinion on UIDAI, I urge you to remember the origins and colonial use of biometric information during 1857 and stop the biometric based projects like UID/Adhaar as has been done in UK, Australia, France and China, to protect the constitutional and legal rights of citizens.

Thanking You

Yours faithfully

Gopal Krishna

Citizens Form for Civil Liberties (CFCL)

Mb: 9818089660 (Delhi)

E-mail: krishna1715@gmail.com

Cc

Hon’ble Member of Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues

Shri Sharad Pawar, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food Processing Industries

Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister of Finance

Shri Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister of Home Affairs

Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, Minister of Labour and Employment

Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology

Kumari Selja, Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment

Shri Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Rural Development

Shri Ajay Maken, Minister of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation

Shri Ashwani Kumar, Minister of Law and Justice

Hon’ble Special Invitee, Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues

Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission

Shri Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, UIDAI

Hon’ble Member of Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards to all usual residents of the country of age 18 years and above under the scheme of National Population Register (NPR)

Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister of Finance

Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad, Minister of Health and Family Welfare

Shri Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister of Home Affairs

Shri Ajit Singh, Minister of Civil Aviation

Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology

Kumari Selja, Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment

Shri Praful Patel, Minister of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises

Shri V. Kishore Chandra Deo, Minister of Tribal Affairs, and Minister of Panchayati Raj

Shri Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Rural Development

Shri Ashwani Kumar, Minister of Law and Justice

Hon’ble Special Invitees to Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards to all usual residents of the country of age 18 years and above under the scheme of National Population Register (NPR)

Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission,

Shri Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, Unique Identification Authority of India,

Prof. K.V. Thomas, Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution,  

Shri Paban Singh Ghatowar, Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs