Aadhar controversy

What will it take for the government to accept court rulings that Aadhaar is not mandatory?

The Supreme Court has reiterated three times that is not mandatory for Indians to enrol for the programme and cannot be denied services if they lack an identity number.

Three times – on September 23, 2013; March 24, 2014; and on March 16, 2015 – the Supreme Court has ordered that it is not mandatory for Indians to enrol for an Aadhar unique identity number. These rulings should not have been necessary, since participation in the Unique Identification project was being promoted as being purely voluntary in the first place. Yet, after the 2013 order, the Finance Ministry, the Unique Identification Authority of India that administers the Aadhar programme and other organisations pleaded with the court to change its order. The court was not moved.


The government, the UIDAI, the states and the agencies carried on regardless, threatening people that they would be excluded from services if they did not enrol. That is why there are three orders, one for each year since 2013, directing time after time that no one should be compelled to enrol for an Aadhaar card and that no one should be denied any services simply because they are not on the UID database. But the coercion has not stopped. The agencies demanding Aadhaar numbers from people seeking services would simply say that while it was true that the court had said the UID card should not be mandatory, they had not received instructions to the contrary from their superiors. They would insist that their computer systems could not accept applications unless a UID number had been filled in.

Once again, on August 11, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Adhaar number is not mandatory. This time, the context was different. The court was aware that its earlier orders had frequently been violated. It also had affidavits from those who had been denied what was due to them because they had not enrolled on the database, or they had enrolled after they were threatened with exclusion.

Right to privacy

More significantly, the Attorney General told the court that the government did not believe that Indians had a fundamental right to privacy, even though this concerns have been raised by several parties, including the Supreme Court, about who would have access to the data collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India. 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 doubts having been raised by the Attorney General, the court was inclined to let the matter be resolved by a Constitution bench.

The judges were aware that it is difficult to anticipate when a Constitution bench would be formed. The cases before them had introduced them to the seriousness of the challenges to the UID project, including the fact that a parliamentary standing committee had rejected a bill that would govern the programme and asked for the legislation to be sent back to the drawing board; that the project had defied this parliamentary rejection and carried on without a law; the unrestrained outsourcing of the project and its consequences for personal security; the national security implications of databasing a whole population, as also of the involvement of companies that are reputed to being close to the Central Intelligence Agency and to foreign governments. This order of the court was expressly to serve the "balance of interest", and to protect citizens from having their rights irremediably lost.

The interim order is, therefore, categorical: One, “it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card”. Two, “the production of an Aadhaar card will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen”. Three, “the UID number or the Aadhaar card will not be used by the respondents (which includes the UIDAI and the various departments of the government including the Census Commissioner and the Election Commission, as also state governments) for any purpose other than the public distribution scheme and in particular for the purpose of distributing foodgrains and cooking fuel, such as kerosene”. Finally, the “Aadhaar card may also be used for the purpose of the LPG distribution scheme”.

Two exceptions

This exception for the public distribution system and cooking fuel was made at the behest of the Attorney General.  He said 91% of the population had already been enrolled on the UID database and that it was useful in reducing leakages in service delivery.

Both are contestable claims. The government’s affidavit to the court says that as of March 31, UID numbers have been issued to 80.46 crore residents. The population of India is in the vicinity of 128 crore. In fact, the numbers on the database have grown because people were threatened with denial of service if they did not participate in the programme.

In relation to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme, the affidavit asserts that asking people seeking work under the scheme to show their Aadhaar cards had ensured the deletion of a large number of "bogus and ghost workers" from the MGNREGA database. It cites the instance of Andhra Pradesh and Telengana. These figures are revealing, but do not bear out the government's claims. The table says that the total number of bogus workers is 12,78, 724  ‒ or 4% of the total workers. Of these, 273,933 workers were bogus because they were dead, while 809,275 had migrated to other places.

The Attorney General argued that Aadhaar was a beneficent project because it gave an identity to many among the poor who did not have any proof of identity. Yet, the government’s affidavit says that so far only 213,800 of the 80.46 crore people on the database had been enrolled under the introducer system, which was meant for those who could not produce any supporting documents.

Though the judges agreed to allow the government to use Aadhar for the distribution of fuel and foodgrains, they had expressed their anxiety about how the rights of the people who are on the PDS system will be protected till the Constitution bench makes its decision on the programme. When the Attorney General began to list out further areas in which Aadhar may be used – NREGA, scholarships – the court refused to expand the number of categories.

Some protections

The fourth clause in the court’s interim order unequivocally prohibits “the information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card” being “used for any other purpose” except foodgrain and fuel distribution. There is one other exception: the court has said that the information with the UIDAI may be used “as directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation”. This is contrary to an order its order of March 24, 2014, where the bench had restrained the UIDAI from sharing its biometric data base with any agency. It is not clear why the court changed its mind.

However, this means is that the UIDAI database cannot be used to clean up other databases; to "seed" the number to crosscheck existing data, as was being done by the Election Commission,  the National Population Register and banks; or to authenticate the identities of people. If this had been allowed to carry on, it would make it difficult to recover from the harms apprehended in the challenges to the project.

The UIDAI actually has a "data sharing policy" that they advertise, which provides meta data on enrolments on its website, including details about gender and mobile phone numbers. It has also been promoting the creation of apps that use the Aadhaar number in a variety of situations. These uses of personal information, and the idea of data as property, and the security risks – personal and national – involved is proscribed by the interim order and will have to wait for the decision of the Constitution bench.

The court has mandated the government to “give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks” that enrollment in the programme is not mandatory. There has been no sign of compliance with this order. Is this an indication that the government intends to continue flouting the orders of the court, and do as it pleases?

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Making two-wheelers less polluting to combat air pollution in India

Innovations focusing on two-wheelers can make a difference in facing the challenges brought about by climate change.

Two-wheelers are the lifeline of urban Asia, where they account for more than half of the vehicles owned in some countries. This trend is amply evident in India, where sales in the sub-category of mopeds alone rose 23% in 2016-17. In fact, one survey estimates that today one in every three Indian households owns a two-wheeler.

What explains the enduring popularity of two-wheelers? In one of the fastest growing economies in the world, two-wheeler ownership is a practical aspiration in small towns and rural areas, and a tactic to deal with choked roads in the bigger cities. Two-wheelers have also allowed more women to commute independently with the advent of gearless scooters and mopeds. Together, these factors have led to phenomenal growth in overall two-wheeler sales, which rose by 27.5% in the past five years, according to the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM). Indeed, the ICE 2016 360 survey says that two-wheelers are used by 37% of metropolitan commuters to reach work, and are owned by half the households in India’s bigger cities and developed rural areas.

Amid this exponential growth, experts have cautioned about two-wheelers’ role in compounding the impact of pollution. Largely ignored in measures to control vehicular pollution, experts say two-wheelers too need to be brought in the ambit of pollution control as they contribute across most factors determining vehicular pollution - engine technology, total number of vehicles, structure and age of vehicles and fuel quality. In fact, in major Indian cities, two-thirds of pollution load is due to two-wheelers. They give out 30% of the particulate matter load, 10 percentage points more than the contribution from cars. Additionally, 75% - 80% of the two-wheelers on the roads in some of the Asian cities have two-stroke engines which are more polluting.

The Bharat Stage (BS) emissions standards are set by the Indian government to regulate pollutants emitted by vehicles fitted with combustion engines. In April 2017, India’s ban of BS III certified vehicles in favour of the higher BS IV emission standards came into effect. By April 2020, India aims to leapfrog to the BS VI standards, being a signatory to Conference of Parties protocol on combating climate change. Over and above the BS VI norms target, the energy department has shown a clear commitment to move to an electric-only future for automobiles by 2030 with the announcement of the FAME scheme (Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles in India).

The struggles of on-ground execution, though, remain herculean for automakers who are scrambling to upgrade engine technology in time to meet the deadlines for the next BS norms update. As compliance with BS VI would require changes in the engine system itself, it is being seen as one of the most mammoth R&D projects undertaken by the Indian automotive industry in recent times. Relative to BS IV, BS VI norms mandate a reduction of particulate matter by 82% and of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 68%.

Emission control in fuel based two-wheelers can be tackled on several fronts. Amongst post-emission solutions, catalytic converters are highly effective. Catalytic converters transform exhaust emissions into less harmful compounds. They can be especially effective in removing hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides and carbon monoxide from the exhaust.

At the engine level itself, engine oil additives are helpful in reducing emissions. Anti-wear additives, friction modifiers, high performance fuel additives and more lead to better performance, improved combustion and a longer engine life. The improvement in the engine’s efficiency as a result directly correlates to lesser emissions over time. Fuel economy of a vehicle is yet another factor that helps determine emissions. It can be optimised by light weighting, which lessens fuel consumption itself. Light weighting a vehicle by 10 pounds can result in a 10-15-pound reduction of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Polymer systems that can bear a lot of stress have emerged as reliable replacements for metals in automotive construction.

BASF, the pioneer of the first catalytic converter for automobiles, has been at the forefront of developing technology to help automakers comply with advancing emission norms while retaining vehicle performance and cost-efficiency. Its new state-of-the-art manufacturing facility at Mahindra World City near Chennai is equipped to develop a range of catalysts for diverse requirements, from high performance and recreational bikes to economy-oriented basic transportation. BASF also leverages its additives expertise to provide compounded lubricant solutions, such as antioxidants, anti-wear additives and corrosion inhibitors and more. At the manufacturing level, BASF’s R&D in engineered material systems has led to the development of innovative materials that are much lighter than metals, yet just as durable and strong. These can be used to manufacture mirror brackets, intake pipes, step holders, clutch covers, etc.

With innovative solutions on all fronts of automobile production, BASF has been successfully collaborating with various companies in making their vehicles emission compliant in the most cost-effective way. You can read more about BASF’s innovations in two-wheeler emission control here, lubricant solutions here and light weighting solutions here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.