Revoke the decision on making Aadhaar compulsary for Kerala PSC Jobs
Kalyani Menon Sen, a citizen, and petitioner in the Aadhaar case sent a legal notice to the Government of Kerala which has made Aadhaar mandatory for all state government jobs. We are endorsing the joint statement supporting this action originally drafted by Internet Freedom Foundation, Rethink Aadhaar, Article 21 and SMC, because the purpose of preventing fraud cannot and should not be carried out by breaches to privacy, dignity and autonomy of individuals, especially in the absence of any clear basis in law.
Indian Pirate has a clear policy of disagreement with Aadhaar, and our version of the protest letter against the decision is given below:
https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/3/pad/edit/6c058ef58fc6eee7033c1df813c0c9aa/
Since we didn't get a consensus in the main group , the proposal is moved to this Associates group. The discussion in the main group can be seen here: https://codema.in/d/ZD3bVydf/revoke-the-decision-on-making-aadhaar-compulsary-for-kerala-psc-jobs/4
Poll Created Sun 5 Jul 2020 10:11AM
Endorse the Joint Statement by Internet Freedom Foundation, Article 21 and SMC to withdraw the decision on making Aadhar compulsary for Kerala Govt Jobs Closed Wed 8 Jul 2020 10:00AM
We have come to a consensus to endorse the statement and the statement will be published on our website
"Kalyani Menon Sen, a citizen, and petitioner in the batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2019 10 SCC 1) has sent the Government of Kerala a legal notice demanding that it withdraw a recent order mandating compulsory Aadhaar verification for all new applicants and recent appointees to state government jobs. Internet Freedom Foundation, Rethink Aadhaar, Article 21 and Swathanthra Malayalam Computing endorse this legal notice, and call on the Kerala Government to withdraw this order.
The order dated 11.06.2020, which was issued by the Kerala Government's Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, relates to applicants and new appointments to the Kerala Public Service Commission. As Ms. Menon Sen's legal notice notes, mandating Aadhaar verification for new appointees and applicants violates the order of the Supreme Court relating to Aadhaar, KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2019 10 SCC 1).
The 5 judge bench specified that mandating the use of Aadhaar numbers, whether for verification or any other purpose, was constitutionally valid for two purposes only: for linking with PAN numbers, and for obtaining welfare benefits in the nature of a subsidy which is funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also read down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act (as it then stood), and specified that the State could use Aadhaar only if it met the following two conditions: that such use was voluntary, and that such use was covered by primary legislation for that purpose.
The purpose of preventing fraud cannot and should not be carried out by breaches to privacy, dignity and autonomy of individuals, especially in the absence of any clear basis in law. As a constitutional body, the Government of Kerala, and the KPSC are bound to uphold the rule of law and the judgements of the Supreme Court, and should withdraw the notification, and clarify that Aadhaar verification remains optional."
Copy of the letter send on 26/06/2020 is in the link below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OMmus9lzytp5sjpEH4sc6vNmGIP-TRTL/view.
The Indian pirates has a clear policy to scrap Aadhaar .See : https://pirates.org.in/manifesto
Reference: https://internetfreedom.in/joint-statement-kerala-aadhaar/
The malayalam version of the Joint Statement dated 29/06/2020 :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WuJMhfcoGW6dCV-KmItHzo_pbu7hFpCj/view
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 100.0% | 4 |
|
| Abstain | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 35 |
|
4 of 39 people have participated (10%)
Akshay
Tue 7 Jul 2020 4:07AM
I don't think we didn't have consensus in the other group. The dissenting comment seems to not be part of the discussion. If you're not trying to build a consensus, you're not part of the process.
Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer Sat 18 Jul 2020 9:31AM
@Pirate Praveen what outcome should we give here.
Pirate Praveen Mon 20 Jul 2020 8:02AM
We can publish this on our website.
Pirate Praveen Wed 29 Jul 2020 11:03AM
Created a request to web team to publish it https://gitlab.com/piratemovin/piratesite/-/issues/6 (from next time, remember to inform web team once a proposal closes)
Pirate Bady Wed 5 Aug 2020 4:45PM
statement published at https://pirates.org.in/statements/aadhaar-kerala-psc
Pirate Praveen · Wed 8 Jul 2020 12:39PM
@Akshay a disagree vote is an active opposition. We just need to check if we need to take the disagreeing person on board or not. Such prioritization is realized through associates and members sub groups.