Aadhaar Bill introduced in Parliament

Realizing the need to bring legal legitimacy to the Aadhaar scheme and to counter the disruptive behaviour of the opposition parties, the Government has introduced the Aadhaar Bill as a money Bill in the Loksabha. It will therefore not require the mandatory passage in Rajyasabha and hence will go through despite the opposition.

Leaving the political issues aside, the professionals were objecting to the scheme on the grounds that it does not protect the privacy of the individuals.  Now that Aadhaar number has already been issued to a very large section of the population, whatever privacy violations have taken place are a thing of the past. It is not possible to repair this.

Indian citizens therefore have to live with the identity issues associated with the current status  in which the Privacy of people might have been leaked at various user ends such as the LPG gas dealers and Banks.

Naavi has envisaged a separate service that can still protect the Indian citizens from the identity leakage of Aadhaar but it is too large a project for Naavi to bring it out as a pilot project and hence has been kept in the background.

Considering the inevitability of the Aadhaar Bill becoming an Act, let us briefly see what the Bill contains.


The Aadhaar Bill has been named as  “The Aadhaar (targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, benefits and services) Bill, 2016.

Copy of the Bill is available here

Salient features of the bill are:

  1. As regards the Jurisdiction, it extends to whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As regards “Offences” it will be applicable for any offence or contravention committed outside India by any person including foreign nationals.P.S: Since Aadhaar is an electronic document, all aspects of ITA 2000/8 also apply  to aadhaar administration. It is noted that in all the Aadhaar guidance notes, it has been unequivocally indicated that the agencies involved in offering Aadhaar services and dealing with UIDAI on contractual basis will be “Compliant with ITA 2000/8”. Hence all the agencies such as ASAs, ASUAs, AUPs, AUSPs etc need to work on ITA 2008 compliance.
  2. Aadhaar is an “entitlement” of every “Resident” through the process of enrolment by submission of the biometric and demographic environment. Government has retained the option to notify”Other categories”  for enrolment. However what this “Other category” means is unclear. But it can be interpreted that “Citizenship” is not a criteria for issue of Aadhaar and hence even Bangladeshi migrants can get Aadhaar by entitlement. When Aadhaar is further linked to other services such as Bank accounts, any person who has aadhaar can easily merge his identity to that of other citizens. Government is justifying this by declaring that aadhaar is only a scheme meant for distribution of financial benefits . However in due course it will become the primary identification document for Residents (and by extension, the Citizens) and the national security issue remains.
  3. The Aadhar data will be required to be updated by the subjects so that the information( including biometric) remains updated.
  4. The UIDAI may collect service charges for the authentication services that it may provide.
  5. The consent for collection of information will be obtained by the authentication requesting authority.
  6. The requesting authority is responsible to inform the data subject about what information would be used and for what purpose etc. This means that  “Consent” and “Privacy Statement” needs to be exchanged at the time a user submits his information to the requesting authority.
  7. The UIDAI will respond to an authentication query with a positive, negative or any other appropriate response sharing such identity information excluding any core biometric information. In this provision, “Any other information” could mean the address, gender etc where the original concept of UIDAI only providing “Yes” or “No” response could be violated. This could cause certain information security issues.
  8. The biometric information collected is deemed to be “Sensitive Personal Information” under ITA 2008 and will be subject to “Reasonable Security practice” as mentioned under Secion 43A of the Act whether or not UIDAI is considered a “Body Corporate” or not.
  9. The manner and period for which information would be stored would be specified.
  10. Information may be disclosed to a Court  not below the District Judge. Such orders may be issued only after hearing the authority. Information may however be disclosed for reasons of national security without Judicial intervention pursuant to the direction of an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary. There will be an oversight committee for review and such direction would be valid for a period of 3 months which may be extended by the review committee.
  11. “Impersonation” may be punished with imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs 10000/- (Far less than ITA 2008 where an attempt to steal or stealing the identity of a person can carry imprisonment of 3 years plus a fine of Rs 1 lakhs)
  12. An unauthorized modification or an attempt to modify the demographic information is liable for 3 years imprisonment and Rs 10000/- fine. (This also overlaps with ITA 2008 where the imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs 5 lakhs is provided.
  13. Unauthorized collection of identity information is punishable with imprisonment of upto 3 years and fine upto Rs 1 lakh.
  14. 14. Unauthorized dissemination of identity information is punishable with imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs 10000/- which may extend to Rs 1 lakh for Companies.
  15. Unauthorized access to the CIDR (Central identifies Data Repository), downloading deleting, stealing, disclosing,damaging, denying access, introducing computer contaminant etc of information is liable for imprisonment upto 3 years and fine of Rs 10 lakhs.
  16. Any person tampering with the data in any removable storage medium is also punishable with 3 year imprisonment and Rs 10000/- fine.
  17. Any misuse of information by a requesting authroity is punishable with an imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs 10000/-
  18. Any enrolment agency failing in their duties will be punishable with imprisonment upto 1 year and fine upto Rs 10000/- which may extend to rs 1 lakh for companies.
  19. Residual penalty for offences not specified would be 1 year imprisonment and fine of Rs 1 lakh.
  20. When the offence is committed by a Company the officials may be held guilty unless they prove due diligence.
  21. For enforcing extra territorial jurisdiction the requirement is that act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involves any data in the CIDR.
  22. The offences will be investigated by Police not below the rank of an Inspector of Police.
  23. No Court will take cognizance of any offence except with the complaint made by the Authority (UIDAI).
  24. No Court inferior to that of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or a Chief judicial Magistrate shall try any offence punishable under  this Act.
  25. Government retains the power to supersede the authority in emergent conditions for a period of 6 months.

The Bill being a money bill is signed by Mr Arun Jaitely himself.

The above is a quick overview of the bill and would be discussed in more detail in due course.

Naavi


Some of the earlier articles on the subject published on this website are available here:

Search on the term : UIDAI in posts since 12/12/12  
Search for the term UIDAI in Old Posts


arbitration_logo4

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment

The Menace of Impersonation.. Here is a Cyber Notice

At a time when Phishing and Web based frauds are prevalent all over, it was a discomforting feeling to see that there was a web based ad in Gumtree.com in the name of Naavi inviting recruitment of web based workers by some party perhaps in Australia.

Since the ad invites applications from web workers which could at some point of time in future result in some fraud, and loss to the respondent of the ad, I hereby notify the Cyber world that I am not in any way associated with the ad and this could be a possible attempt of impersonation.

I have placed a formal Cyber Notice at www.cyber-notice.com and also sent a notice to Gumtree.com separately as follows.

2016-03-04_08-25-29

To avoid domain name confusions, I had designed the “Lookalikes.in” service and now the problem is widening. I have suggested a simple solution to the advertiser to add a disclaimer that this has no relation to Naavi, the founder of www.naavi.org.

I hope they would adhere to this ethical practice. if not, it would confirm that their intentions are suspect.

In the meantime, as a Cyber Risk Advisor, I have to warn the public to discourage such blatant irresponsible activity and refrain from responding to the ad.

Naavi

forum_ad

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment

Why all Arbitrators cannot be Effective Mediators

Arbitration and Mediation are often spoken off in the same breath as if the two are closely related. Though Arbitration and Mediation belong to the family of “Alternate Dispute Resolution” (ADR), it is to be recognized that the processes are widely different and requires different skills. All Arbitrators donot make good Mediators and need to accept the situation and live with it.

Where as in a Mediation, the intervening neutral party namely the Mediator tries to bring about a settlement between the disputing parties by using his “Behavioural Analysis Skills”, without the legal authority to issue a mandatory order, an Arbitrator has the authority given to him by the parties themselves to issue a binding award.

There is a third type of ADR process called Conciliation which is similar to Mediation but where the Mediator is a person with some authority and respect and therefore can nudge the parties to come to a settlement though his legal authority is not more than that of a mediator.

An Arbitration is more suitable when the disputes are likely to have legal issues to be interpreted. Mediation/Conciliation is more suitable when the issues to be settled are technical in nature or involve emotional issues.

When a legal practitioner is called upon to assist in a Mediation process as a Counsel or act as a Mediator, the legal practitioner has to understand the nature of the dispute and whether he should accept a role in the resolution.

When we try to resolve an “Emotional” issue through a judgement of a Court, even if the judgement is given by an authoritative Court, the parties may end up dissatisfied. Similarly issues in which lot of technicalities are involved may easily be mis-interpreted even by experienced Judicial authorities.

If the objective of “Dispute Resolution” is to bring about an amicable settlement or what we call as a “Win-Win” outcome, there is a need to explore the Mediation and Conciliation options more than Arbitration and Litigation.

An advocate by nature is trained to look at issues from the point of view of a legal provision and earlier Court decisions. Similarly, when a Judge acting as an Arbitrator looks at a dispute, his primary focus again is on what the law says.

Mediation on the other hand works on bringing about a settlement between the disputing parties in a fair manner without any party being mislead about their rights or not being given a fair opportunity to assert their rights.
Some times a resolution which both disputants agree upon may not find a direct provision in law or it may even appear to be different from an earlier Court decision. A trained advocate would find it uncomfortable in accepting it as a proper resolution even when it is the informed choice of the parties.

The Mediator as well as any advocate who participate in Mediation to assist the parties should be able to fully digest this difference between the litigation and arbitration process on the one hand and Mediation on the other and discharge their responsibilities.

In behavioural science, there is a term called “Role Set”. It is a tendency to behave in a set role pattern even when the person has moved onto to a different role responsibility. In a simple example, when a subordinate “clerk” is promoted and pushed into a decision making “Officer” role, he often continues to behave more like the Clerk than an officer, He often is reluctant to take decisions, and expects some body else to take the decision which he may efficiently implement. This has nothing to do with inefficiency but because of a habit formed in the earlier role with which he is comfortable. But in an organizational environment, this “Role Set” behaviour is dysfunctional since any person promoted to a higher responsibility fails to get over his behavioural traits of the previous position and therefore becomes less effective than what he should otherwise be.

In the same manner when a good Judicial person or a Good lawyer moves into a Mediation room, they may have a tendency to replay their litigation experience and bring in the known CPC procedures and Case laws to settle the mediation. They may not realize that their role in the mediation should be only to maintain an informed decision making environment in which the disputing parties come to a settlement in a manner which will retain their friendly relationship with which they entered into the earlier contract so that they can move on in life after resolution as if the dispute is a thing of the past.

There is no doubt that this is difficult for established advocates to appreciate and accept that a “Win-Win” solution is better in mediation than a “Win-Lose” situation which is the average norm in litigations.

It is for this reason that subject experts and non advocates become more effective Mediators as we see in the field of “Marriage Dispute Resolution”. In an emotionally charged situation such as a “Divorce”, it is the spirit of reconciliation which is a better option to be invoked rather than what is the “right” under law. Successful divorce advocates are therefore more “Counsellors” than advocates and should be able to switch roles easily.

Though business disputes need not be as emotional as a divorce, Advocates and Mediators who engage in Mediation must consciously avoid the “Role Set” problem and be able to think differently.

Probably, Mediators or Advocates in Mediation need to undergo a “Behavioural Training” to understand the problems of “Role Set” and how to overcome them.

Naavi

forum_ad

Posted in arbitration, Cyber Law | Leave a comment

Global Forum for Virtual ODR now on ujvala.in

Naavi’s initiative to develop ADR and ODR professionals across India by creating citywise community of interested persons has been opened through the website www.ujvala.in.

The website provides for registration of members and showcasing their profiles. It is intended that the members would be provided with an opportunity to share their knowledge through the blog and periodical web meetings and webinars.

Though the website is mainly meant for advocates who want to specialize in taking up Arbitration related cases and also act as arbitrators if they so desire, professionals who have specific expertise in other domains who can act as Arbitrators or Mediators may also register as members.

More information is available on the website.

Naavi

forum_ad

Posted in arbitration, Cyber Law | Leave a comment

City wise Coordinators required for Virtual ODR Forum

In working towards a vision to make India a Global hub for ODR, Naavi.org is taking steps at professional capacity building by making young advocates ready for ODR.

While the facility for conducting ODR is ready with www.odrglobal.in, the user community is yet to gear itself up to take advantage of the available opportunity to be among the first to develop expertise in ODR and start offering their services.

In our preliminary survey of the market, it is found that many arbitration centers that have been established in India are already conducting ADR proceedings but are not yet into using ODR. Some of these institutions have expressed that even ADR needs to be promoted to some extent now and the new generation of ADR professionals will automatically take up ODR.

In order to develop the ADR community therefore, there is a need for an organizational effort to promote the concept of ADR and ODR simultaneously. Naavi.org which was in the forefront of promoting Cyber Laws starting from 1998 when the draft E Commerce Act came under discussion, now has taken up the “Mission-ODR” to promote the concept of ODR.

As a part of this effort, Naavi.org has proposed to build a “Global Forum of Virtual ODR Professionals”. As a beginning, the forum would be set up in all major cities in India starting with Bangalore. Each city will first have a Coordinator who will assist the development of the forum. Naavi.org provides the back end support with necessary guidance including framing of Standard operating Procedures for the forum.

Members will get services to develop their ADR skills and form themselves either into their own Arbitration units or join any of the established permanent ADR institutions.

As always, we consider this as a project in which community interest is involved and support would be forthcoming from the community.

If you are interested, contact Naavi through e-mail.

Naavi

(P.S: ODR is an form of Alternate Dispute Resolution or ADR such as Arbitration, Mediation or Conciliation done through a Virtual meeting)

Posted in arbitration, Cyber Law | 2 Comments

Dispute Resolution takes a Hop, Step and Jump to ADR and ODR

Naavi.org was born when India stepped into being a Digital Society with the  passage of Information Technology Act 2000. Now after 15 years, we are standing on the threshold of another major transformation in India, this time in the Dispute Resolution process.

There is first an adoption of the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism to overcome the litigation related delays. Then the ADR itself is getting ready to transform itself into Online Dispute resolution (ODR) mechanism.

This ADR adoption and then ADR to ODR transformation will engage the attention of thought leaders in the coming days. Just like paper based contracts migrated to digital contracts with ITA 2000, now the physical litigation society is taking a hop to an ADR society still in physical space and then a jump to the digital ODR society.

In between, the missing step is now being provided by Naavi.org to assist a smooth transformation of the dispute resolution mechanism from Court based litigation to Physical society ADR and then onto Digital Society ODR. In this process, Naavi.org will collaborate with established ADR institutions to bring about the adoption of ADR and then take over the responsibility for guiding the ADR transformation into ODR.

This should enable interested professionals to take up ADR first and then look at ODR as a professional career. Since Ujvala Consultants P Ltd, the parent company that owns Naavi.org has also co-promoted the ODR platform through odrglobal.in, professionals who are ready to take up ODR will have a ready platform to use their skills.

ODR Global also offers “Back Office Services” as an adjunct to its ODR services  small ADR firms and individual ADR professionals can take advantage of these back office services and transform themselves from ADR to ODR using the virtual ODR platform provided by ODRGLOBAL.IN

It is proposed that under the Cyber Law Compliance Center (CLCC), Naavi.org will develop an incubation forum for Professionals interested in ADR and ODR to prepare them for handling ADR/ODR for their clients.

For this purpose, an operational “Guide to ODR”  will also be developed and  made available on subscription basis to the members of the ADR2ODR Transformation Center at a nominal price.

Watch out for the details on this proposed transformation center and contribute your thoughts to make it useful to the community.

P.S: The Transformation Center would be called the “Global Forum of Virtual ODR Professionals “

Naavi

arbitration_logo4

Posted in arbitration, Cyber Law | Leave a comment