India's Attorney-General: Privacy 'Not A Fundamental Right'
from the I-am-not-a-12-digit-number dept
Last month, we wrote about attempts by the Indian government to make Aadhaar, the country's identity number system, mandatory. This was despite repeated rulings by the Indian Supreme Court that it should not be compulsory for government schemes. Last month, another application was made to the court, asking it once more to forbid the Indian government from requiring the Aadhaar card and a unique 12-digit identification number for its services. During the case, India's Attorney-General, Mukul Rohatgi, made the following remarkable assertion, reported here by Hindustan Times:
"[India's] Constitution makers did not intend to make right to privacy a fundamental right," Rohatgi told the bench, during the hearing of petitions opposing a government order that made the 12-number unique identification number mandatory, especially for seeking government welfare benefits.
As the site Scroll.in explains:
The Attorney General quoted two decisions in support of his proposition -- from 1954 and 1963. Those opposing his argument contended that these decisions had been overtaken by the constitutional jurisprudence that had since evolved.
But as well as his purely legalistic arguments, Rohatgi took another, very different angle, telling the court:
It should balance the petitioner's rights against those of the roughly 700 million people, whose subsidies and welfare benefits were dependent on the "fool-proof scheme."
Despite this emotional blackmail -- give up your privacy, or 700 million people will go hungry -- the Indian Supreme Court's interim order confirmed that:
It is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card
and
the production of an Aadhaar card will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen.
However, the Supreme Court did allow the Aadhaar card and number to be used for a few specific government schemes: those for "distributing foodgrains and cooking fuel, such as kerosene." So perhaps people won't want for food or fuel even if campaigners continue to insist that privacy most certainly is a fundamental right, and that making Aadhaar mandatory would infringe upon it.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aadhaar, inda, mukul rohatgi, national id, privacy, rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The US Social Security system when it was created was never intended to be an identity system, either. But look how that's turned out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahemm... well of course!
Or you can just starve to death or worse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy not a fundamental right
You'll see how quickly they spin on their words when its them in the cross-hairs of surveillance. Just look at all the politicians and government employees that woke up this morning to the news that their email addresses were leaked from Ashley-Madison (whether or not that truly means anything, the news media is making a big deal out of it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not mandatory
No, but not having one will mean filling out six extra forms and a 4-6 week delay in getting your benefits. Or am I being too cynical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not mandatory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proposal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the "fool-proof scheme."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baby steps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
India's Attorney-General: Privacy 'Not A Fundamental Right'
I am really surprised with the Indian PM Modi who has become a willing supporter of the Aadhar card. And during his run up to the election, his party was against Aadhar. And the specious arguments by the Attorney General makes me cynical that the politicians like Modi once they come in to power are willing participants in bending the constitutions that guard the citizens.
Perhaps we still have hope in our democracy with the Supreme Court being the last bastion of our constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]