English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Aadhaar Linkages case: Sibal points out the many ways data can be compromised

Published

9 years ago

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The hearings on Aadhaar and its various linkages and privacy and security issued attached to them continued before the Supreme Court constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan on Wednesday (February 7).

The following deliberations took place:

11:34am: Senior advocate Kapil Sibal continued his submissions. He talked about identity information which requires authentication as per section 2(c) of the Aadhaar Act. This means Aadhaar number along with biometric or demographic information. He argued that this part has been wrongly drafted. It means that only

these two pieces of data can be submitted for the purposes of authentication.

He said that while photograph is included in biometric, it has been excluded in code biometric. He said that no alternative information can be given. Aadhaar Act is only for Aadhaar information and nothing else, Sibal said.

“Hence, for every Aadhaar card, the individual’s photograph will also be present,” he said. “There is a definition of identity information in the Act itself.”

At that Justice Ashok Bhushan pointed out:  “The alternatives are for double-checking.”

Sobal said: “It’s a legal argument and not political argument that you’re reducing me to one identity. Section 2(m) is not inclusive, it is exhaustive as pointed out by justice Chandrachud.”

Justice Sikri said: “If I don’t have the Aadhaar number, I still exist…” to which Sibal agrees, saying “we are more than just an Aadhaar number.”

Sibal says: “Section 8(3)(c) proposes that only three methods of identity information should be available. Secondly, there is no centralised database. Regulation 4 refers to modes of information. It gives you an idea what of authentication is. There is no other mode. Regulation 5 has to be read with 8(3)(c).”

He said: “If you have your authentication on your smart cards, your biometrics cannot go anywhere, hence no one can steal anything. That’s what most jurisdictions do, especially in the UK.”

Justice Bhushan said: “That regulation 5 has an overriding affect.”

Ibal said: “The act says that the number qualifies for the identity information. That means I can establish my identity via Aadhaar. Once I establish my identity information with the help of Aadhaar, no one can question me.”

“Read the Act in consonance with the provisions of the constitution,” says Sibal.

“If we accept your submissions, the constitutional validity of this becomes substantive,” says justice Chandrachud. “Under this statute, you have to collect information, which is not a state activity. Use of Aadhaar number to establish identity by the state or a body corporate under the law… that answers all of the ‘who’ and ‘how’ questions.”

Sibal says: “It must be assured that my property is protected. It is licensed out to agencies, etc. Now, because it is my property, i.e. my information, hence it must be protected and I must be assured that it is done.

“In a digital world my property cannot be retrieved, unlike in the physical world. If I have lost my property, in the physical world, it can be retrieved. If not, compensation would be provided. In the digital world, nothing can be protected. We’re not dealing with the physical world,” submitted Sibal.

“The digital world will know more about you than you would know; that’s where the world is heading towards,” he said. “In the USA, it is said that the digital world is like a Jurassic Park.”

“Data can arguably be divided into two types, Meta data and messages. Aadhaar is linked to every journey. Meta data is the information minus the messages. You’re making me vulnerable,” said Sibal.

“Unnecessary information is being stored because of Aadhaar and the vulnerability is the violation of my rights. The point is, an individual’s data who is not a criminal, should not be in the public domain.”

Justice Sikri gave a counter situation where a member of a particular airline travels even the airline retains the data about your traveling trend. What is so different about Aadhaar being linked to your railway ticket?”

Sibal continued: “CDR becomes a single target for cyber criminals for external and internal attacks according to an RBI report. A recent RBI report has explained that CDR has been targeted. According to this, because of Aadhaar there is a readily available platform for cyber criminals. It’s a staff paper/report. We need to have safeguards.”

“There’s a need for care. It does not straightaway talk about vulnerability,” Justice Chandrachud commented. “Every centralised depository can be hacked and using Fevicol and wax, by making a mould, anyone without even any technical knowledge can derive your fingerprint.”

At that Sibal said: “Once the national based information is compromised, we cannot do anything. Any criminal can take a defence that my fingerprints were stolen during every criminal trial,” Sibal said.

“By creating a 3D image of a fingerprint, once infringed through using a fingerprint app as in Android phones, the infringer can use it anywhere he wants, Sibal said.

“Airtel was benefitted by using latest Aadhaar, where new bank accounts were opened and the bonus/benefits the people earned were transferred into that Airtel bank. Hence, Aadhaar wouldn’t be a reliable source of information for the benefits to them,” Sibal said.

“And most benefits are received by aged people. Biometrics of children and the aged cannot be relied upon, as they don’t come to be very accurate. Further, it’s not reliable in cases of disabled people. The statute contemplates breaches.”

12.47 pm: “It will encourage bribery as big corporate competitors will pay money to get information, Sibal said. “The larger the data base, greater the chance of rejection of Aadhaar enrolment.

1.03pm: Adhaar matter adjourned to February 8.

– India Legal Bureau

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

5 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

18 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

19 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com