Does AADHAR really pose privacy issues!!!!

The recent case in Supreme Court which required nine judge bench to decide whether the right to privacy be deemed a fundamental right has raised several questions.  The government is questioned over its integrity and the compulsion posed on citizens to provide their biometric data and other such personal details.  The counsels for the petitioners include Gopal Subramanium, Soli Sorabjee and Shyam Divan.  These legal mammoths made a strong pitch in favour of privacy.

Furthermore, in Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India case Justice K. Iyer stated that although Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law - but this does not mean that mere appearance of procedure followed will satisfy the said Article, the procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. The case also accepted “Right to Privacy” a part of Article 21. Similar expressions were repeated by Supreme Court in Govind vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) case.

The petitioners have also pointed to acceptance of right to privacy via Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (herein it included right of personal data). It is further argued that right to privacy is very crucial for the true rationalization of right of liberty and dignity.

I would however tilt towards the government’s arguments in this case.  Yes, the above said arguments definitely supports the fact that proving personal data to government shall be on voluntary basis rather than a compulsion through various restrictions, and forcing its citizens may be an intrusion in citizen’s privacy.  However, a basic law of good ethics and general humanity tells us that on a broader level when multiple parties are involved we need to look at net societal good rather than pity issues for educated few. If a law/policy/decision/argument is going to benefit positively to a majority of people even on the cost of perceived loss for few – it is better for society-as-a-whole.

I in no way can believe that any of 300 crore of Indians who tile hard on soil daily to make sure they do not sleep hungry tonight – will really care for their fingerprints getting taken by government. If the scheme can save few crores (although the expectation is more than few crore) it will in some way get back to the poor India – the most deserving class.  The leakages in subsidies, black money, illegitimate documents – these sounds a bigger threat in the path of a developed and ethical India.

And let’s face the fact, if government wants they can get all the data with respect to personal details (i.e. except biometric details) of any citizen – they have enough resources and plethora of laws to justify such an act if they wish.  On the part of a citizen if we are ethical and have not done any wrong - then there does not seems any reason to be afraid of providing such details. People, who have black money, use multiple identities to hide frauds and so on and so forth – need to be afraid of such issues.  Let’s say the citizens have fundamental right to privacy – the government is stopped from intruding in our personal life.  In such a case, just imagine how simple it will for terrorists to function as no IB will be able to work – there will not be any tracing on emails (right to privacy) and these days more terrorists and separatists organization are functioning on social media only to radicalize the youth (obviously in wrong direction).

We seem to be sharing our all data with private parties (social media companies, MNCs and so on) but refuse to trust our own government.  Opponents have also argued that government will trace all social media updates and other such personal aspects.  But question is – how does it matter – when we share something on social media it is for sharing with others only.  So the answer  again rotates to single answer-  only those who have illegitimate funds and illegal uses of funds need to be afraid not legitimate guys –w hi are actually most of us.

Yes, there are issues with respect to privacy – but not related to government taking our data but our data falling in hands of illegitimate people and private parties.  This needs to be worked upon and should be a point of discussion among intellectuals.  The government is expected to work on this as the danger is not our personal data going to government but to other private parties. 

The hard (and mostly unsaid) fact is that all those petitioners who fight a case in Supreme Court are not even aware of the difficulties that our farmers and poor people face.  The welfare of AADHAR has to be driven to them first.  Direct benefit transfer is one of these advantages.