‘Benefits are very high’: When Bill Gates praised Aadhaar

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its crucial verdict today on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on May 10 reserved the verdict on the matter after a marathon hearing that went on for 38 days, spanning four-and-half months.

While there has been a host of criticism against the it, one man who is a fan is Microsoft founder Bill Gates. He had said in May that Aadhaar doesn’t pose any privacy issue.

The 62-year-old multi-billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist said Nandan Nilekani, Infosys founder who is considered as the chief architect of Aadhaar, was consulting and helping the World Bank on the project.

Asked if India's Aadhaar technology is worth emulating by other countries, he replied, "Yes".

"The benefits of that (basic ID -- Aadhaar) are very high," he told PTI.

More than a billion people in India have enrolled in Aadhaar, the world's largest biometric ID system.

"Yes, countries should adopt that approach because the quality of governance has a lot to do with how quickly countries are able to grow their economy and empower their people," Gates said in response to a question.

"We have funded the World Bank to take this Aadhaar approach to other countries," he said.

It is believed that several countries, including some from India's neighbourhood, have approached New Delhi for assistance in this matter.

"Aadhaar in itself doesn't pose any privacy issue because it's just a bio ID verification scheme," Gates, the head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said when asked about the concerns about privacy issues raised by certain quarters in India.

"The individual applications that use Aadhaar, you have to look and see what's been stored and who has access to that information. And so, application by application, you have to make sure that's well managed. In the case of the financial bank account I think it's handled very well," he said.

"(It uses) Aadhar to set up the accounts so that you can both get your cell phone and get your bank account," he added.

Observing that Aadhaar was started before Prime Minister Narendra Modi came into office, Gates said that it was very much to his credit that he was willing to embrace it.

"I'm both good friend and an admirer of Nandan Nilekani and some of the initiatives of digitisation efforts that can help with education that can help with governance," he said.

ONE NATION, ONE IDENTITY

QUESTIONS OF LAW ON AADHAAR

• Compulsory collections of biometrics under Aadhaar violates right to privacy of citizens.
• Possession of Aadhaar made mandatory by the Aadhaar Act and orders passed from time to time creates a surveillance state.
• State cannot compel citizens to part with biometrics to non-state actors (banks, mobile companies, etc).
• Aadhaar Act is unconstitutional as biometrics of children between 5-18 years taken without parental consent.
• Citizen has no option to opt out of Aadhaar by destroying biometrics which are centrally stored.
• No safeguards against possible leakage and securing of sensitive personal data.
• The Aadhaar scheme discriminates against old persons or those whose biometrics have been erased.

WHAT IS AADHAAR?

• Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number, based on demographic and biometric data considered a proof of residence & not proof of citizenship.
• The data is collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a statutory authority established in January 2009. It is world’s largest biometric ID system. 
• Aadhaar numbers are mandatory to enjoy host of services, including mobile sim cards, bank accounts, the Employee Provident Fund, and a large number of welfare schemes.

WHAT IS AT STAKE?

• Government has made Aadhaar the sole KYC document for all financial transactions.
• If Aadhaar gets the green light, it will encourage the govt push the UID project more vigorously, and make it something similar to the social security number of the US.
• In case of adverse judgment, it will roll back all direct benefit transfer schemes and crores of rupees that has already been poured into it.

The case was keenly contested by a host of 31 petitioners on one side who said the common identity document collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is fraught with dangers as it collects and stores valuable biometrics of citizens for all times to come. If a citizen prefers to opt out of the scheme, he has no access to the central storage facility of UIDAI.

The Centre, UIDAI and state governments, on the other hand, defended the Aadhaar by touting it as the largest biometric identity system which provides any citizen with the ease of accessing all public welfare schemes and facilities using a single document. To showcase the strength and uniqueness of Aadhaar, the hearing of the case witnessed a rare sight in Court when the UIDAI set up screens and projectors to give a live demonstration to the judges in open court on the security features that go behind Aadhaar.

But the petitioners based their arguments on the constitutional plane basing their challenge against Aadhaar as a threat to personal privacy. Advocates who argued this case said the concept of Aadhaar was ridden with flaws as by the application of the Act and orders passed from time to time, a person who chooses not to have Aadhaar dies a civil death. Although Aadhaar was introduced on the foundation of voluntariness, it now became mandatory leading to the creation of a surveillance state. These concerns were even voiced by the judges hearing the case.

One of the petitioners had termed Aadhaar "an electronic leash" and said the government could completely destroy an individual by "switching off" the 12-digit unique number. They found Aadhaar to be violative of citizens' right to life and liberty as the state compelled citizens to part with their biometrics to non-state actors such as banks, mobile service providers, etc. Moreover, even children between 5-18 years had to part with biometrics, making the scheme arbitrary and unreasonable.

On the other hand, the Centre defended the law claiming that it allowed the minimal invasion to secure the right to life of millions of citizens by ensuring that subsidies and goods reach the targeted beneficiaries. But even when the hearing was on, doubts did emerge of possible loopholes as there emerged reports of a leak of identity details with UIDAI. This too became a ground for the Court to view Aadhaar with suspicion.

With inputs from PTI