The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vickram Krishna, Kamayani Bali Mahabal, human rights activist, Yogesh Pawar, journalist, Dr Nagarjuna G., and Professor R. Ramkumar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The PIL was filed to challenge the government notification of January 29, 2009 that created the UIDAI, an agency established under the aegis of the Planning Commission to issue UIDs to every Indian citizen.

Advocate for the petitioners, Mihir Desai, told the court that there were serious concerns on the issue of safety systems, privacy and security of the people. A data base of this scale of 1.2 billion people’s fingerprints and iris scans has never been created. Thus, the entire proposition for a population base such as India is completely untested and unproven. The ID system in UK ID Cards’ non-duplication was entirely scrapped. It is estimated that approximately five per cent of any population has unreadable fingerprints, either due to scars, ageing or illegible prints. In the Indian environment, experience has shown that the failure to enrol is as high as 15 per cent due to the prevalence of a huge population dependent on manual labour.

“We, therefore, ask that the project be halted; a feasibility study done covering all aspects of this issue,” urges the PIL.

The Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Report has found the project to be “full of uncertainty in technology as the complex scheme is built upon untested, unreliable technology and several assumptions”. The PIL has held that this is of serious concern given the project is about fixing identity through the use of technology, especially biometrics.

Advocate Desai argued that the UID was promoted as a “voluntary entitlement”. Now, people are being threatened that they cannot access any services or institutions unless they are enrolled for a UID. The petition submitted stated the enrolment for Aadhar is working on an extremely fast pace and that it has become impossible to avoid attempts at enrolment.

The petitioners have submitted that such mandatory, non-voluntary and coercive enrolment for Aadhaar is an affront to their personal integrity, right to make decisions about themselves and the right to dignity enshrined in the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL has also indicated that the Supreme court of India has repeatedly upheld the right to privacy within the right to life in Article 21 and any restriction must be justified through rational and reasonable statutory procedure.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday directed the Unique Identification Authority of India and the Centre to decide on a representation questioning the lack of safeguards in Aadhar cards. A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Anoop Mohta was hearing a petition by Vickram Crishna and others claiming there is lack of security and confidentiality, and no safety mechanism to ensure that private data are not circulated.

The petition challenged the January 2008 notification setting up the UID and urged the court to restrain the authority from taking further steps. The petitioners’ advocate, Mihir Desai, argued that on December 13, 2012, the standing committee on finance rejected the proposed bill on UID saying it was riddled with problems, such as lack of clarity, and would not eradicate the need to provide other documents for identification.

He said the UID was constituted only by a notification and questioned whether it has considered measures for confidentiality and privacy given that it is being applied for the largest population in India. “The magnitude is huge. Large set-ups don’t have it. Internationally it has failed. It was scrapped in the UK and in the US, it was whittled down,” said Desai.

Justice Shah said, “Issues such as privacy, security and confidentiality can be taken care of by the authorities only.”

When Desai pointed out that the technical know-how is lacking for a large set-up like India and, in certain places identity screening facility is absent, the judges, in their order, said, “We do not propose to go into the merits of the controversy as the petitioners cannot pray for a writ of mandamus without first making representation to the authorities concerned, which are supposed to implement the project and take a decision.”

Disposing of the PIL, the HC directed the petitioners to make a representation within two weeks to the authority and the Centre and told the latter to take a decision within four months.