Thread by @gautambhatia88

Aadhaar Bench reassembles. Day 1, session 2.

Shyam Divan goes through the composition of the UIDAI. Justice Chandrachud makes the first intervention of the case. "This does not seem to be a labour heavy organisation."

SD: In fact, one thing that will become clear as this case goes on is that there is almost negligible governmental oversight over this data.

Shyam Divan takes the Court through the functions and responsibilities of the UIDAI.

Shyam Divan points out that in the pre-Act era, there was no mention of biometrics in the legal instruments that governed Aadhaar.

SD: When you are picking up sensitive data for seven years, there must be some standard of governance.

Justice Bhushan says that the guidelines are broad and might have covered everything.

SD says that biometric collection was patently illegal, and that illegality was not cured by the passing of the Aadhaar Act.

Sikri J asks whether the result of illegality would be that the database has to be destroyed. SD says yes.

SD explains how authentication works at, for example, an airport.

SD says that the biometric reader may or may not have a GPS. Because of the GPS it is possible to know that at such and such time, MR X entered the airport.
Even when you have no GPS, the fingerprint reading is transmitted to the CIDR, and can be tracked back.

SD: two things capable of being known. One - that there was authentication at such and such time. And two - because of the GPS, the location.

SD: When you scale this up, you get a complete profile of the individual's actions.

Chandrachud J asks whether there is any tracking back, or only verification.

Sikri J says that when you apply for a visa they take your boundaries and match it when you enter the NY airport, so they also know when you've done that.

SD says that the question is whether there is an electronic trail, and whether that trail reveals location.

Shyam Divan says that it is very important to understand that this is not an isolated instance but something that builds up over time.

Shyam Divan says that while border control may take your biometrics, it is restricted to that. You're not required to submit your fingerprints for various transactions throughout the day.

SD: The difference is between a pervasive and a non-pervasive system. He takes the example of mandatory Aadhaar for mid-day meals.

SD: The system is one that throughout the day, there will be an electronic trail.
Chandrachud J had earlier asked a question about cross-linking of databases. SD says that Aadhaar enables that, and that allows for profiling.

SD: The question is not whether they are actually tracking or not. The question is whether such an architecture possible.

Chandrachud J says that would this be taken care of if the data was used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

Shyam Divan says that he will explain why that is not what is being done.

Shyam Divan says that the core issue is that the design itself is bad. It enables State domination.

Shyam Divan says that while at one point UIDAI projected that the purpose of Aadhaar was to give everyone an identity, RTI revealed that the actual number of people for whom Aadhaar was the first ID, was very small.

Shyam Divan returns to his submissions, tracing the chronology of the program.

CJI asks SD to present the case theme-wise. SD agrees. He says that he needs some time, however, to explain what the project is about and what it does.

Chandrachud J asks why the State can't say that biometrics are needed to prevent social welfare leakage and go to the right persons.
SD says he will address that issue in detail, but flags the argument that the outflow in terms of Aadhaar expenses is far more than savings.

SD says that the question will also remain that even if Aadhaar plugs leakages, if it is a proportionate method of doing so.

SD returns to his submissions on the chronology of the program.

SD points to some of the distinctions between the old Aadhaar Bill and the Aadhaar Act.

SD takes the Court through the Standing Committee on Finance's report on the old bill.

SD points to the concerns expressed by the Standing Committee on issues of privacy, security, and data theft.

SD points to the Standing Committee's concerns with respect to manual labourers.

SD points to the Committee's observation that the United Kingdom revoked its national biometric database.

SD points to the Committee's concerns about Civil liberties, such as surveillance and profiling, in the absence of a data protection law. He points to the concerns expressed by the NHRC about privacy.

SD points to the Standing Committee's observation about the lack of clarity about the financial coats of the project.

Chandrachud J points to para 60 of the Standing Committee report that raises concerns about efficacy when scaling up such a project to a national scale.

SD says that 6.2 crore biometrics have been rejected. These are not dishonest people or ghosts. As the project scales up more, this number will only continue to increase.

SD comes to the observations and recommendations of the Standing Committee, which points out that pending a law, anybl executive action would be unethical and in violation of parliamentary prerogatives.

SD points to the Standing Committee's concerns about illegal immigrants. He quotes the Standing Committee's observation that the scheme appears not to be well thought-through.

SD: the UK abandoned its identity system beacause it was "unsafe, untested.... and could be a threat to personal rights." (still quoting the Standing Committee)

CJI asks how the Standing Committee report from 2010 is relevant to the 2016 Act. SD says it explains many of the problems that continue to persist.

CJI raises the issue of the money bill. P. Chidambaram stands up and explains the position with respect to the money bill argument. Arvind Datar also explains the position. Brief debate.

SD resumes.

SD quotes the Standing Committee report saying that there is no comparative costing between the Aadhaar scheme and other identity schemes, and criticising the heart nature of roll out, and warning that it might become dependent on private players.

SD quotes the standing committee categorically saying that the (old) bill in its present form is unacceptable.

Sorry, Twitter is hanging. SD takes the Court through some of the notifications after the Standing Committee report, and the passage of the Aadhaar Act. This completes the pre-Act chronology.

Bench rises. Day 1 over. To resume tomorrow at 11 30.

Cheers.