English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Aadhaar biometric data cannot be shared for crime investigations: UIDAI

Published

on

Aadhaar biometric data cannot be shared for crime investigations: UIDAI

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has rejected National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) proposal seeking limited access to the Aadhaar database to catch first-time offenders, arguing that the law prohibits sharing of such information.

The biometric data collected by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) cannot be used for any other purpose except for generating Aadhaar and authenticating the identity of cardholders, said UIDAI, the body managing the Aadhaar program, said media reports.

Invoking section 29 of the Act, the UIDAI said, “…biometrics data collected by UIDAI can be used only for the purpose of generating Aadhaar and for authentication of identity of Aadhaar holders and cannot be used for any other purpose.”

However, it said that the section 33 of the Aadhaar Act allows a very limited exception and permits the use of or access to Aadhaar biometric data in cases involving national security after pre-authorisation by an oversight committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary.

The UIDAI said the statement was in reference to reports in certain sections of media about purported use of Aadhaar biometric data for the purpose of crime investigation and in that regard it has clarified that the use of or access to Aadhaar biometric data for criminal investigation is not permissible under Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

The agency further said the stand was in line with the Centre’s position in the ongoing Aadhaar case in the Supreme Court.

“This is also the consistent stand taken by the Union of India in the ongoing Aadhaar case in the Supreme Court. It may be noted that based on this legal position, UIDAI has never shared any biometric data with any crime investigating agency. It may be underlined here that when Mumbai High Court gave orders to share biometric data with an investigating agency in a particular case, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court which stayed that order,” UIDAI said.

Government officials said the NCRB chief ’s proposal was ill conceived and pointed out that in some countries, authorities maintained a database of people who had been convicted, according to a report in The Times of India (TOI). “It does not mean that the police needs to access the data for all citizens. There are separate laws to deal with data on convicts and the information is collected by other agencies,” said the report quoting official sources.

The UIDAI statement came after NCRB director Ish Kumar on Thursday made a strong pitch for the police to be provided with limited access to Aadhaar data, to aide them in catching first-time offenders and for identification of unidentified bodies.

The NCRB director had stated that around 50 lakh cases were registered every year in the country and most of them committed by first-time offenders, who leave their fingerprints, which would not be available in police records.

“There is need for access to Aadhaar data to police for the purpose of investigation. This is essential because 80 to 85 per cent of the criminals every year are first time offenders with no records (of them available) with the police. But, they also leave their fingerprints while committing crime, there is need for limited access to Aadhaar, so that we can catch them,” he said.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1529755891762{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #a2b1bf !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]Restrictions on sharing information that are placed under Section 29 of the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 (from The Indian Express):

(1) No core biometric information, collected or created under this Act, shall be—(a) shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever; or (b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.

(2) The identity information, other than core biometric information, collected or created under this Act may be shared only in accordance with the provisions of this Act and in such manner as may be specified by regulations.

(3) No identity information available with a requesting entity shall be—(a) used for any purpose, other than that specified to the individual at the time of submitting any identity information for authentication; or (b) disclosed further, except with the prior consent of the individual to whom such information relates.

(4) No Aadhaar number or core biometric information collected or created under this Act in respect of an Aadhaar number holder shall be published, displayed or posted publicly, except for the purposes as may be specified by regulations.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Canada fact checks own media, rejects report claiming PM Modi knew of Nijjar murder plot

The clarification comes after a Canadian newspaper cited an unnamed national security official, claiming the alleged plot to murder Nijjar was orchestrated by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Published

on

Canada fact checks own media, rejects report claiming PM Modi knew of Nijjar murder plot

The Canadian government clarified that there is no evidence to connect Prime Minister Narendra Modi or his top officials to any criminal activity in Canada, including the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

The clarification comes after a Canadian newspaper cited an unnamed national security official, claiming the alleged plot to murder Nijjar was orchestrated by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The media report further alleged that PM Modi, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval were informed about the plan.

Nonetheless, the same report acknowledged that the Canadian government had no direct evidence to support these claims against PM Modi. Issuing a statement, the Canadian government distanced itself from these allegations, mentioning that there was no substantiating evidence.

The statement underlined that on October 14th, because of a significant and ongoing threat to public safety, the RCMP and officials took the extraordinary step of making public accusations of serious criminal activity in Canada perpetrated by agents of the government of India.

It added that the government of Canada has not stated, nor is it aware of evidence, linking Prime Minister Modi, Minister Jaishankar, or NSA Doval to the serious criminal activity within Canada. It remarked that any suggestion to the contrary is both speculative and inaccurate.

Earlier, India furiously rejected the Canadian daily’s report as ludicrous, terming it detrimental to diplomatic ties that have been frosty since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first accused India of involvement in Nijjar’s killing last year.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that they do not normally comment on media reports, but such ludicrous statements made to a newspaper purportedly by a Canadian government source should be dismissed with the contempt they deserve. He added that smear campaigns like this only further damage our already strained ties.

Diplomatic ties between India and Canada weakened when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accused Indian government agents of involvement in criminal activities on Canadian soil, including murder, extortion, and intimidation. As the diplomatic rift intensified, both the countries expelled top envoys in response.

Hardeep Singh Nijjar was gunned down outside a gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, in June 2023. Earlier in 2024, Canadian authorities arrested and charged four Indian nationals for the murder.

Continue Reading

India News

Parliament winter session: Government lists 15 bills, including Waqf bill

The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

Published

on

The government has listed five new ones and one to amend the contentious Waqf law out of 15 bills for the winter session of Parliament. The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

The government has introduced five new bills, including the Coastal Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to promote coasting trade and increase the participation of Indian-flagged vessels owned and operated by Indian citizens for both national security and commercial purposes.

Another significant legislation that will be introduced by the government is the Indian Ports Bill, 2024. This bill is designed to implement measures for the conservation of ports, enhance security, and manage pollution, ensuring compliance with India’s international obligations and statutory requirements.

Additionally, the government plans to introduce the Merchant Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to meet India’s obligations under maritime treaties and support the development of Indian shipping while ensuring the efficient operation of the Indian mercantile marine in a way that serves national interests.

Pending legislation includes the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which is awaiting consideration and passage after the joint committee of both Houses submits its report to the Lok Sabha. The committee is expected to report by the end of the first week of the winter session.

Currently, there are eight bills, including the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, pending in the Lok Sabha, while two additional bills are in the Rajya Sabha.

Furthermore, the government has also listed the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Bill for introduction, consideration, and passage, which seeks to increase the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of Delhi district courts from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.

The Merchant Shipping Bill, along with the Coastal Shipping Bill and the Indian Ports Bill, is slated for introduction and eventual passage.

Continue Reading

India News

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

Published

on

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) today issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare. The leaders allegedly restricted essential supplies such as food, water, and medical aid to civilians in Gaza, resulting in severe humanitarian crises and deaths, including among children.

Last year in October, Israel had launched attacks on Gaza in retaliation for the surprise attack by Hamas. The Israel-Hamas war has led to the death of thousands of civilians, while lakhs have been displaced. The major infrastructures in Gaza, including hospitals and schools, were also destroyed as Israel vowed to wipe out Hamas.

The International Criminal Court stated that it found reasonable grounds to believe the accused intentionally targeted civilians and limited medical supplies, forcing unsafe medical procedures, which caused immense suffering. This ruling was based on the findings from at least October 8, 2023 until at least May 20, 2024.

The court remarked that it has assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that PM Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza.

Furthermore, it also noted that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and medical supplies created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, leading to death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.

Additionally, the International Criminal Court dismissed two challenges by Israel against its jurisdiction in the situation in the State of Palestine.

Notably, Israel had contested the ICC’s jurisdiction, claiming it could not be exercised without Israel’s consent. Nonetheless, the Chamber ruled that the Court has jurisdiction based on Palestine’s territorial scope, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It further noted that Israel’s objections were premature, as jurisdictional challenges under the Rome Statute can only be made after an arrest warrant is issued.

Reportedly, Israel had also requested a fresh notification regarding the investigation, started in 2021. Denying the request, the court stated that Israel had earlier declined to request a deferral, making additional notifications unnecessary.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com