Can Raghu Raman Deliver Natgrid Project On Time?

Intelligence infrastructure of India is in big mess. Whether it is legal framework or technological infrastructure, Indian intelligence agencies have none. However, even if there are no laws to justify the working of intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies in India yet their works and projects are well beyond the justifications provided under the constitution of India.

In short, intelligence agencies of India and projects related to them are working without constitutional sanction and parliamentary oversight. Even worst is the fact that they are openly violating privacy rights and civil liberties of Indians.

Take the example of Aadhar project of India or UID project of India. It is managed by Nandan Nilekani as the chairman of unique identification authority of India (UIDAI). Aadhar project is hiding truth from Indians and is a very dangerous and e-surveillances oriented project.

Another project is national intelligence grid (Natgrid) that is also not supported by any legal framework and is well beyond parliamentary scrutiny. Projects like Aadhar, NATGRID, Central Monitoring System (CMS), etc are not desirable without “Constitutionally Sounds Laws” supporting them, opines Praveen Dalal, managing partner of Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Till now none of these projects are governed by any Legal Framework and Parliamentary Scrutiny informs Dalal.

Now Raghu Raman, project coordinator of Natgrid, has barely got an extension of six months. However, it is doubtful that he can deliver results in such a short period of time. Further, there is an urgent need to establish e-surveillance policy of India as soon as possible.

Lacks of Privacy Safeguards have already stalled Natgrid Project. Irrespective what Indian Government claims, Natgrid Project of India is in troubled waters. Natgrid would remain in doldrums till it is properly planned and legally implemented, opines Dalal.

WIPO Patent Committee Discussed Tech Transfer And Public Health

Due to some technical problem, our article on similar topic has not appeared in Google news. We are reposting it here for our readers. Any inconvenience in this regard is highly regretted.

The article pertains to initiatives undertaken in the direction of Patents laws by WIPO Patent Committee. These initiatives are very important for both developed and developing countries. However, no consensus has been established in this regard so far.

World intellectual property organisation (WIPO) is the premier international organisation regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs). The sixteenth session of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) was recently conducted from 16th to 29th May, 2011.

The SCP discussed various far reaching issues like patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations to patents. Although these issues are most arguable ones yet some progress has been shown in this session of SCP.

Issues like Pharmaceuticals and Public Health, Data Exclusivity, Technology Transfer, etc are still to be resolved at the International Level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. We welcome the latest effort of SCP and consider it as the beginning of Future Negotiations, says Dalal.

Developing nations are still struggling to deal with technological issues and technology transfer is a must to successfully meet them. While developing countries are insisting upon effective technology transfers yet developed countries are not that enthusiastic regarding the same.

Similarly, the data exclusivity issues are also a bone of contention. European Union and developed countries are insisting upon the same while it is not covered by TRIPS Agreement.

Let us see how future negotiations in these crucial fields would take a shape that can be beneficial for both developed and developing countries.

WIPO Patent Committee Considered Public Health And Tech Transfer

World intellectual property organisation (WIPO) is the premier international organisation regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs). The sixteenth session of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) was recently conducted from 16th to 29th May, 2011.

The SCP discussed various far reaching issues like patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations to patents. Although these issues are most arguable ones yet some progress has been shown in this session of SCP.

Issues like Pharmaceuticals and Public Health, Data Exclusivity, Technology Transfer, etc are still to be resolved at the International Level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. We welcome the latest effort of SCP and consider it as the beginning of Future Negotiations, says Dalal.

Developing nations are still struggling to deal with technological issues and technology transfer is a must to successfully meet them. While developing countries are insisting upon effective technology transfers yet developed countries are not that enthusiastic regarding the same.

Similarly, the data exclusivity issues are also a bone of contention. European Union and developed countries are insisting upon the same while it is not covered by TRIPS Agreement.

Let us see how future negotiations in these crucial fields would take a shape that can be beneficial for both developed and developing countries.

Empanelment Of Neutrals At PTLB

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) are becoming popular these days. However, technology dispute resolution in India is the new field that arbitrators, mediators and neutrals must be looking forward.

However, there are very few technology dispute resolution providers in the world. Further, when it comes to techno legal dispute resolution services, there is none except Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). PTLB is the exclusive techno legal ODR service provider of the world. It provides a wide variety of techno legal dispute resolution services.

PTLB is currently empanelling neutrals for its fast growing techno legal ADR and ODR services. A minimum five years experience in arbitration matters is required to be empanelled with PTLB. The empanelment would be for minimum of one year (1) and maximum of five (5) years.

The empanelment may be renewed at the discretion of PTLB and Perry4Law. The requisite Performa for Individuals can be downloaded from “Here”. The Firms, Companies, Institutions, etc can download the Performa from “Here”.

The application form must be accompanied with proper fees in order to be analysed. Perry4Law and PTLB have the sole discretion to accept or reject the empanelment requests.

For all those arbitrators and mediators who wish to expand their practice to international markets, this is a golden opportunity. If a neutral has dealt with domain name disputes or other similar technology related disputes, he/she may prefer to empanel with PTLB. Contact PTLB with the prescribed fees and application form in this regard.

Should Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Be Changed?

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has formulated the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) long before. It has stood the test of the time. However, with the passage of time, new challenges and issues have also arisen.

This has forced the GNSO Council to consider a revision of UDRP norms. The UDRP has not been reviewed by the GNSO Council since its inception. ICANN has come up with a preliminary issue report on the current state of UDRP. This report is seeking inputs from UDRP specialists and public at large for the desirability to bring necessary changes in the UDRP policy.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, ICANN has been taking many pro active steps for streamlining the Domain Name world. For instance, recently ICANN and INTERPOL have agreed to work in the direction of Securing Internet, informs Dalal. Now a Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP has been released by ICANN to gather popular opinions of Stakeholders, informs Dalal.

There is opinion for both in favour of and against such revision. WIPO’s Erik Wilbers is not in favour of bringing changes in the present UDRP scheme. In fact, WIPO has written a letter to ICANN advising it against revising the UDRP. WIPO argues that the UDRP has proven to be flexible and fair; that this is in any event the wrong time to revise it given expansion of the domain name system and introduction of new rights-protection mechanisms; that review would probably end up overburdening the UDRP; and that any review should be preceded by an analysis of cybersquatting.

As far as India is concerned, technological issues of IPRs in India are still not popular. For instance, we do not have a Dedicated Law on Domain Name Protection in India, informs Dalal. Domain Name Protection in India is needed and in order to do so we need a Dedicated Domain Name Law, suggests Dalal. It would be better if India makes its choice and opinion regarding the Report very clear opines Dalal.

While none can doubt that UDRP is far from perfect yet whether it must be amended or not have to be decided only after analysing the opinions of both sides.

WIPO Must Strengthen Its Technology Dispute Resolution Services

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is a well known name in the fields of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and dispute resolution. WIPO has its own Arbitration and Mediation Centre (AMC) that provides world renowned dispute resolution services.

WIPO also provides world class domain name dispute resolution services. Parties to the dispute can draw upon a growing database of over 1,500 independent WIPO arbitrators, mediators and experts from 70 countries. The candidates on the WIPO List of Neutrals range from seasoned dispute resolution generalists to highly specialized practitioners and experts covering the entire legal and technical spectrum of intellectual property. Their geographical diversity suits the international character of many disputes. The general WIPO List of Neutrals is not made available as such to the public. However, the WIPO Center does publish its specific list of WIPO Domain Name Panelists.

One area that WIPO must pay special attention is Dispute Resolution of Cross Border Technology Transactions and E-Commerce Disputes, suggests Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and a Neutral at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. The future disputes would be Techno Legal in nature and WIPO must be well prepared to deal with the same, suggests Dalal.

Although WIPO is world renowned for its domain name dispute resolution services yet in areas like cyber law disputes, cyber forensics disputes, e-discovery related disputes, etc, WIPO is still establishing itself.

WIPO must establish a “Separate and Dedicated List” of Panelists who can manage the Techno Legal Disputes in an effective manner, suggests Dalal. This List must be made Public so that the expertise of Panelists of WIPO is well known in advance, suggests Dalal.

This seems to be a good suggestion that WIPO must seriously consider. Its present list of domain name specialists is not reflective enough upon its true capabilities. With growing competition from other international institutions and organisations like European Union (EU), United Nationals Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), etc, WIPO cannot afford to take it lightly.

Even at the national level, ODR services providers like Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have been working hard in his regard. In fact, Perry4Law and PTLB have recently provided the first Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India and ODR Policy of India.

Bilateral agreements between various countries may also be beneficial in this regard. EU India has lots in common in this regard and we must engage in an EU India ODR Development Dialogue, suggests Dalal. Let us see how the techno legal ADR and ODR dispute resolution services would take a shape in the future.

EU India Cross Border Consumer Disputes Resolution

International organisations and stakeholders like United Nations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), European Union Commission (EU Commission), World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), World Trade Organisation (WTO), etc have been stressing hard on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for resolving various disputes.

However there is no bridge between EU Commission and India in this regard. Thanks to the initiatives of Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) that ODR Policy of India and Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India has finally been suggested.

Now EU Commission has considered use of ADR and ODR for Cross Border Consumer Disputes. As far as India is concerned, Cross Border Dispute Resolution, especially Cross Border Technology Transactions Dispute Resolution, is still at the infancy stage.

Even the basic level ODR in India is facing sever legal roadblocks. There is no Dedicated Legal Framework for ODR in India, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and CEO of exclusive techno legal ODR service provider centre of India. Even the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 needs urgent Amendments so that it may not contribute for further increase in backlog of cases in India, suggests Dalal.

EU has been working in the direction of use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for effective Dispute Resolution and it must work in association with countries like India in this regard, suggests Dalal. There is an urgent need of EU India ODR Development Dialogue, suggests Dalal.

Even the Law Ministry of India in general and Veerappa Moily in particular must seriously consider changing the ADR and ODR environment of India. The present legal and judicial setup of India is not conducive for the same.

Perry4Law And PTLB Suggested ODR Policy Of India

Online dispute resolution (ODR) and technology dispute resolution (TDR) are issues that have not been explored much by India. Even alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism has also not been explored to the maximum possible extent in India.

Further, there are very few ADR and ODR service providers in India. However, when it comes to technology dispute resolution and techno legal dispute resolution services, there are only handfuls of ODR service providers in India.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) are providing the exclusive techno legal ODR and technology dispute resolution services in India. However, both ODR and Technology Dispute Resolution requires a National Policy for effective use in India, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India.

Presently India has no policy in this regard. Realising the same, Perry4Law and PTLB have provided the exclusive Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India, informs Dalal.

The policy covers issues like legal standards of ODR, international harmonisation of ODR, cross border technology dispute resolution, cross border e-commerce dispute resolution, etc.

The policy has also suggested bringing suitable amendments in the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 that is the sole ADR law of India.

The policy has arranged and assembled all the possible information that Perry4Law and PTLB have shared in this regard so that individuals and international organisations like United Nations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), World Trade Organisation (WTO), etc can be benefited from the same.

Let us hope the Law Ministry of India in general and international organisations like UN, UNCITRAL, WIPO, WTO, etc would consider the same while formulating national and international policies, norms and regulations.

Will Natgrid And NCTC Be Established In India?

National intelligence grid (Natgrid) of India and national counter terrorism centre (NCTC) of India has been planned for a long. Despite many deadlines, both Natgrid and NCTC have failed to take a start. Both are very important projects yet they must be subjected to Parliamentary oversight as well as must balance fundamental rights with national security requirements.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of India’s exclusive techno legal ICT law firm Perry4Law and CEO of human rights protection centre of India for cyberspace, NATGRID and NCTC are essential for National Security of India. However, certain Constitutional, Legal and Technical issues must be resolved beforehand for the successful implementation of these Projects, suggests Dalal.

NATGRID and NCTC are essential for robust and effective Intelligence Agencies and Law Enforcement Functions in India. The only requirement is to ensure that their “Abuses” can be anticipated, prevented and remedied, suggests Dalal. The present intelligence infrastructure of India is in bad shape and there is an urgent need to rejuvenate the same.

For instance, hints have been given that Blackberry, Gmail, Skype and other similar encryption oriented services would not be banned in India. In the near future, intelligence agencies of India and law enforcement agencies of India would be required to develop intelligence gathering skill development. With the present skills of these agencies technological issues would pose great trouble for them in future.

Meanwhile, the very projects of Natgrid and NCTC are in danger of being redundant and no starter. The Home Ministry has informed the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that any further delay in establishing the Natgrid could have serious repercussions for the country’s internal security.

There are many techno legal issues that Home Ministry, Natgrid, NCTC, etc have to resolve. In the absence of resolving these issues, these projects may never see the light of the day.

Aadhar Project And UIDAI Booty Sharing Got Sour

Till now it is absolutely clear that Indian government, unique identification project of India (UID project) or Aadhar project of India and unique identification authority of India (UIDAI), led by Nandan Nilekani, are fooling Indians.

Aadhar project and UIDAI are evil designs to indulge in illegal and unconstitutional e-surveillance upon Indians. Aadhar project and UIDAI are based upon deceit and deception. There is no legal framework, no defined policies and guidelines and most importantly no procedural and civil liberty safeguards.

In reality, Aadhar project and UIDAI have evil intentions. In fact, Aadhar project and UIDAI are the most evil projects of India till now. This is the reason why Aadhar project or UIDAI have never got a smooth sail. The failure of Aadhar project is also attributable to the controversial nature of the project as well as due to the arbitrary manner of its launch.

Surprisingly, till now the UID project has not shown any of the requisite parameters that allow it to receive huge public money that government of India is very willing to give charitably. Even the loans and grants by World Bank are without any transparency and accountability. In the absence of any transparency and accountability, the whole project seems to be “booty sharing” by big companies at the cost of public interest.

This is also evident the way finance ministry is allotting public money to UIDAI even in the absence of any legal framework. Further, the UIDAI is itself deviating from its adopted policies and guidelines. For instance, UIDAI is now backing away from its open technological standards and is indulging in the vendor lock-in tactics. The intention is to simply share the hard earned public money with few even when freely available software options are readily available.

Similarly, UIDAI is encouraging making Aadhar number mandatory despite its initial stand. In fact, the Mysore district authorities have declared that quoting of Aadhar number would be compulsory at various levels in the state government offices in the district.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India, we have no “Dedicated” Data Protection Law in India. Even India does not have a Data Security Law and Privacy Law. This makes the sensitive information and personal details of Indian Citizens “Highly Vulnerable” to misuse, informs Dalal.

Surprisingly L-1 Identity Solutions, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and another U.S.-headquartered company, lead two of the three vendor consortia, which have been “prequalified” by the UIDAI for the first phase of an effort to register Indian residents with a 12-digit unique number using biometric identifiers. It is ironical that the countries who discarded similar projects themselves are implementing the same in India.

Frustrated by the management of Aadhar project, two of the world's largest technology companies - IBM and HP - on Monday opted out from bidding for the 2,000-crore outsourcing contract to manage the world's biggest citizen identity database. It seems the booty sharing of Aadhar project and UIDAI has got sour. No matter how much controversial the Aadhar project and UIDAI may get, we Indians have a habit of discussing the same and then forget about it. Indians wake up before it is too late or another multi billion rupees scam hits you. Similarly, wake up before your civil liberties are sold forever to foreign vendors and our e-surveillance hungry nation.

Blackberry, G Mail And Skype May Not Be Banned In India

Blackberry, Gmail and Skype have been asked to provide encryption free services in India. When these companies conveyed their inability to do so, Indian government warned them of banning their services in India. Subsequently, India issued directions to telecom service providers forcing them to drop Blackberry’s services if Blackberry does not provide free and unencrypted access to its services in India.

This episode has happened because we have no lawful interception law in India, no encryption policy in India, no effective telecom policy in India, a draconian and ineffective cyber law of India that needs urgent repeal and many more such factors.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi base law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India, India is the only country of the World where Phone Tapping and Interceptions are done without a Court Warrant and by Executive Branch of the Constitution of India. Phone Tapping in India is “Unconstitutional” and the Parliament of India has not thought it fit to enact a “Constitutionally Sound Law” for Phone Tappings and Lawful Interceptions. Even the Supreme Court’s directions in PUCL case have proved futile and presently the Court is dealing with the issue once more, informs Dalal.

While none can doubt about the National Security and Law Enforcement Requirements yet they must be “Reconciled” with Fundamental Rights of Indians, says Dalal. Further, Intelligence Infrastructure of India also needs urgent rejuvenation, suggests Dalal. Recently the Home Ministry of India asked the Departments of Telecommunication (DoT) and Department of Information Technology (DIT) to examine the existing legal framework and recommend appropriate amendments of the laws to ensure smooth access to services like BlackBerry and Skype.

DoT has now clarified its stand in this regard and it is against the proposal of discontinuing about 14 communication services that intelligence agencies cannot track currently. Further, DoT is also not in favour of imposing responsibility upon mobile phone companies to provide assistance to decrypt all the services they provide.

Keeping in mind this latest development, it can be assumed that services of Blackberry, Gmail, Skype, etc would not be banned in India for some more time.

However, Indian intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies must concentrate upon skills development in India. Further, one thing that Indian intelligence agencies must develop on priority basis is techno legal Intelligence gathering skills development. Encrypted services in India are going to stay and law enforcement and intelligence agencies must develop skills to deal with the same in future.

Has Parliament Of India Become Redundant?

Indian constitution provides, to a great extent, separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary. However, of late this separation of power has ceased to exist in India. The balance has been disturbed as parliament of India is not performing the tasks assigned to it by Indian constitution.

India is perhaps the only country of the World whose Agencies and Instrumentalities are working without any law supporting their existence, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of new Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Whether it is the Aadhar Project/ UID Project, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies of India, etc none of them are “Practically Governed” by any Legal Framework and Parliamentary Scrutiny, informs Dalal.

Instead of increasing the transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, India is further making these agencies more unaccountable and lawless. The right to information act 2005 (RTI Act 2005) is the sole transparency law of India that needs further amendments and strengthening. However, the proposed right to information rules 2010 instead of strengthening the RTI Act, 2005 took steps that are retrograde in nature.

Whether it is Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Intelligence Agencies of India, none of them are presently Accountable to Parliament of India, informs Dalal. This casts a doubt about the Impartiality and Transparency of these Agencies, suggests Dalal.

The latest to add to this list of doubts is the proposal to exclude CBI, national investigation authority of India (NIA) and national intelligence grid (Natgrid) from the applicability of RTI Act, 2005. The constitutional validity of national investigation agency act, 2008 (NIA 2008) is still doubtful and CBI and Natgrid are not governed by any law at all. Even the proposed central monitoring system of India is without any parliamentary oversight.

In these circumstances it can be safely said that Indian Parliament is slightly better than a non operational one. It does not conduct any relevant business these days and even if it does not operate at all, not much difference would be there.

Are Indian Parliamentarians listening or has Indian Constitution been “Bypassed” for surrendering all its “Constitutional Powers” to its Executive Branch and Bureaucrats?, asks Dalal. Perhaps, the concept of “Separation of Power” no longer exists under Indian Constitution, says Dalal.

Why Aadhar Project And UIDAI Are Dangerous

It seems Google is still facing the technical problems as its news servers are giving a 503 error. Despite our posting this article twice, it failed to appear at Google news. While Google's Blogger platofm says that everything is alright, it seems many technical issues have yet to be resolve by it before Blogger is finally back.

Google’s Blogger platform has recently faced a technical glitch due to data corruption. This resulted in inability to post to Blogger platforms as well as deletion of some recent posts and comment. With the diligent efforts of Google, not only Blogger is back but even the posts have been restored.

Our citizen journalism platform is also Blogger based. This may be reason why our post titled “the dangers of Aadhar project and UIDAI” did not appear in the Google’s News segment. We are posting the same once again for our readers. Any inconvenience is regretted.

Unique identification project (UID project) or Aadhar project of India is always portrayed as a welfare scheme. In reality, Aadhar project and UIDAI have evil intentions. In fact, Aadhar project and UIDAI are the most evil projects of India till now.

What is more surprising is why this e-surveillance and big brother project has not been scrapped by the Prime Minister’s office (PMO). In this interview of Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Supreme Court Lawyer, he has shared his opinion and concerns regarding Aadhar project and UIDAI.

Q 1. Is India ready for a controversial project like Aadhar?

A 1. In my personal opinion, India is not yet ready for either Aadhar Project/UID Project or Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In fact, both Aadhar and UIDAI are “Highly Undesirable” at this stage. Aadhar and UIDAI must be preceded by a Constitutionally Sound Legal Framework and Parliamentary Oversight. Both of these are missing presently making it an “Unconstitutional Project”.

Q 2. What is the process of making a constitutionally sound law in India?

A 2. Constitutionally preparation of a Legislation/Bill is the duty of Indian Government and it must be passed by the Parliament of India. In this case, an authority like UIDAI is suggesting the Bill that (UIDAI) itself is devoid of any Constitutional Validity. Indian Government must come up with its own Bill on Aadhar Project as even the Bill by UIDAI is mere “Eyewash” and does not make much difference. Even if it is passed by Parliament of India, the Unconstitutional Nature of the Aadhar Project and UIDA would remain the same.

Q-3. What are the serious concerns that have been ignored by Indian Government, UIDAI and Indian Cabinet?

A-3 I found it really surprising the way the Bill prepared by UIDAI was cleared by Cabinet and introduced in the Parliament. Many issues, including Profiling, Privacy Safeguards, Civil Liberties Protection, E-Surveillance, etc have been totally neglected by UIDAI and Cabinet and perhaps would be ignored by the Parliament of India as well.

Q 4. How do you see the present activities of Aadhar project and UIDAI?

A 4. The present exercise of taking Biometric Details of Indians is simply “Unconstitutional”. A Project and Authority without any Legal Sanction and Parliamentary Oversight cannot indulge in these activities on such a mass scale. I believe the Government of India is violating various Civil Liberties of Indian though Aadhar Project and UIDAI by making it, Directly and Indirectly, Relevant and Mandatory.

Q-5. Is Aadhar project and UIDAI still not governed by any legal framework and what are the recent developments in this regard?

A 5 Yes. Till now the position has not changed. Rather it has become worst where the District like Mysore has made UID Number Mandatory for various Public Services even though UIDAI claims it to be Optional. Practically UID never was, and never will be, Optional.

Q 6. What are the possible Civil Liberty violations that Indians can face in near future?

A 6. There are great chances that Biometric Details of Indian would be shared with Intelligence Agencies of India and Law Enforcement Agencies of India. Projects like National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). Central Monitoring System (CMS), etc would love to utilise these Biometric Details.

Aadhar Project And UIDAI Are Big Brother Projects

Media reports have been revealing the truth of Aadhar project of India and unique identification authority of India (UIDAI). Media has been pointing towards e-surveillance and big brother role of Aadhar project and UIDAI.

The danger of Aadhar project and UIDAI are apparent and now the evil intentions of Aadhar project and UIDAI are appearing one by one. In fact, Aadhar project and UIDAI are the most evil projects of India till now.

In this interview of Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India, some of the issues that make Aadhar project and UDIAI illegal and unconstitutional have been discussed. According to Praveen Dalal nothing short of a “Legislative Deliberation” between UIDAI and Stakeholders/Experts can resolve this problem.

Q-1 Why are Aadhar project and UIDAI illegal and unconstitutional?

A-1 Aadhar/UIDAI is illegal for many reasons. The primary being that neither Aadhar Project nor UIDAI is governed by any Legal Framework. As I said before the Legal Framework must be “Constitutionally Valid”, i.e. it must pass the tests of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and other Parts of the Constitution of India. I am not commenting upon the “Constitutional Validity” of an Executive Order at this point of time, though it is a very important and controversial issue as well.

Q-2 What are your main concerns regarding Aadhar project and UIDAI?

A-2 My biggest concerns are absence of Legislative Framework for Aadhar Project and UIDAI. Further, absence of Privacy Laws and Data Protection Laws would also seriously jeoparidise Aadhar Project and UIDAI.

Q-3 What Indian government and UIDAI must do now?

A-3 The Government of India/UIDAI must at least enact a “Constitutionally Valid” Legal Framework for Aadhar Project and UIDAI before proceeding further. National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 (Bill) proposed by UIDAI is a good “Administrative Framework” but it is far from being a “Constitutionally Sound” Law that can protect Aadhar Project and UIDAI from the attacks of Unconstitutionality.

Q-4 Has Aadhar project and UIDAI been legally challenged so far?

A-4 I am not aware of any Petition that has challenged UIDAI’s constitutionality. Of course, there are some Citizen Groups and NGOs that are also raising these objections. I do not recollect the name of these Groups and NGOs.

Q-5 What is the current legal status of Aadhar project and UIDAI? Are they legally binding upon Indian citizens?

A-5 Neither Aadhar Project nor UIDAI would be “Fait Accompli” for Indian citizens. The formal launch of Aadhar is of not “Significance” as it has neither been “Successful” in India nor it is “Immuned” to any sort of legal or Constitutional challenge. All the past and present acts or omissions of Aadhar Project/UIDAI can be, and would be, challenged in a Constitutional Court in due course of time.

The Dangers Of Aadhar Project And UIDAI

Unique identification project (UID project) or Aadhar project of India is always portrayed as a welfare scheme. In reality, Aadhar project and UIDAI have evil intentions. In fact, Aadhar project and UIDAI are the most evil projects of India till now.

What is more surprising is why this e-surveillance and big brother project has not been scrapped by the Prime Minister’s office (PMO). In this interview of Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Supreme Court Lawyer, he has shared his opinion and concerns regarding Aadhar project and UIDAI.

Q 1. Is India ready for a controversial project like Aadhar?

A 1. In my personal opinion, India is not yet ready for either Aadhar Project/UID Project or Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In fact, both Aadhar and UIDAI are “Highly Undesirable” at this stage. Aadhar and UIDAI must be preceded by a Constitutionally Sound Legal Framework and Parliamentary Oversight. Both of these are missing presently making it an “Unconstitutional Project”.

Q 2. What is the process of making a constitutionally sound law in India?

A 2. Constitutionally preparation of a Legislation/Bill is the duty of Indian Government and it must be passed by the Parliament of India. In this case, an authority like UIDAI is suggesting the Bill that (UIDAI) itself is devoid of any Constitutional Validity. Indian Government must come up with its own Bill on Aadhar Project as even the Bill by UIDAI is mere “Eyewash” and does not make much difference. Even if it is passed by Parliament of India, the Unconstitutional Nature of the Aadhar Project and UIDA would remain the same.

Q-3. What are the serious concerns that have been ignored by Indian Government, UIDAI and Indian Cabinet?

A-3 I found it really surprising the way the Bill prepared by UIDAI was cleared by Cabinet and introduced in the Parliament. Many issues, including Profiling, Privacy Safeguards, Civil Liberties Protection, E-Surveillance, etc have been totally neglected by UIDAI and Cabinet and perhaps would be ignored by the Parliament of India as well.

Q 4. How do you see the present activities of Aadhar project and UIDAI?

A 4. The present exercise of taking Biometric Details of Indians is simply “Unconstitutional”. A Project and Authority without any Legal Sanction and Parliamentary Oversight cannot indulge in these activities on such a mass scale. I believe the Government of India is violating various Civil Liberties of Indian though Aadhar Project and UIDAI by making it, Directly and Indirectly, Relevant and Mandatory.

Q-5. Is Aadhar project and UIDAI still not governed by any legal framework and what are the recent developments in this regard?

A 5 Yes. Till now the position has not changed. Rather it has become worst where the District like Mysore has made UID Number Mandatory for various Public Services even though UIDAI claims it to be Optional. Practically UID never was, and never will be, Optional.

Q 6. What are the possible Civil Liberty violations that Indians can face in near future?

A 6. There are great chances that Biometric Details of Indian would be shared with Intelligence Agencies of India and Law Enforcement Agencies of India. Projects like National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). Central Monitoring System (CMS), etc would love to utilise these Biometric Details.

Corporate Mergers And Acquisitions In India

Merger and acquisitions (M&As) have become in indispensable part of Indian corporate environment. Business efficiency warrants that companies and organisations must be merged with or acquired by others for better performance and enhanced profit margins.

A merger is a combination of two or more businesses into one business. In India the term “amalgamation” is used synonymously for merger. An acquisition may be defined as an act of acquiring effective control by one company over assets or management of another company without any combination of companies. Thus, in an acquisition two or more companies may remain independent, separate legal entities, but there may be a change in control of the companies.

However, Merger and acquisitions are not a free ride and they are subject to various Laws of India, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of new Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Further, talks are in progress for excluding Banking Related (M&As) in India from the ambit of Competition Commission of India (CCI), informs Dalal.

With the recent proposed amendments in the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, now only Reserve Bank of India (RBI) would have power to regulate M&A pertaining to banking sector. In fact, the proposed amendments have already been approved by Cabinet of India.

The CCI has released the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011, informs Dalal. This is a good step in the right direction, says Dalal.

Now corporate mergers and acquisitions (corporate M&As) would be regulated in India with effect from June 1. The new norms have been drafted with the objective of curbing anti-competitive practices adopted while engaging in M&As. However, M&As that commenced before June 1 with definitive action have been kept outside the competition watchdog's purview. Similarly, a combination taking place outside India with insignificant local nexus and effect on markets in India will not come under the purview of CCI.

Now the M&As like the proposed Cairn-Vedanta may fall under the purview of the CCI. Though the companies have got the approval from their boards of directors and the process of acquisition is well underway, the deal is yet to be sealed. Let us see how much fairness these proposed regulations would bring in the corporate M&As regime of India.

India May Loose The Generalised System Of Preferences (GSP) Scheme Of EU

European Union and India are in the process of considering the latest Free Trade Agreement (FTA). However, disagreements have already started surfacing. For instance, the intellectual property rights (IPRs) issues have already been subject to hot debate.

Further, EU, India and other countries may also face Technological Issues of IPRs in future, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi base IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. For instance, Technology Transfer has been a subject of much debate in the past. While developed countries are reluctant in technology transfer yet developing countries are insisting for the same, informs Dalal.

Similarly, in the Patent field as well, especially Pharmaceutical related IPRs, tussles between India and other countries are going on. While developed nations are insisting upon TRIPS Plus Provisions in Data Exclusivity regime, India is in no mood to do the same, informs Dalal.

Now EU has aimed another blow upon developing countries. EU’s Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, has announced plans to slash the number of countries, from 176 to 80, that benefit from the generalised system of preferences (GSP) scheme, whereby eligible nations enjoy reduced or zero customs tariffs on imported goods.

The proposed reforms would come into practice from 2014. Speaking to reporters, De Gucht made it clear the action was aimed at large emerging economies like India, Brazil and Russia, which did not require continued specialized assistance, given their newly muscular economies. He said 40 per cent of the EU’s “current preferences benefit Russia, Brazil, China, India and Thailand, which no longer need the same.” Further, countries classified by the World Bank as high-income or upper-middle income countries for three consecutive years would automatically become ineligible.

If dropped, India may be forced to enter into FTAs with EU. This is the core strategy of EU where it can force other countries to fall in line with its own International Trade Objectives, suggests Dalal. However, implications of this decision of EU have yet to be analysed from the perspective of TRIPS Agreement, says Dalal.

E-Delivery of Public Services Development Policy Loan

Recently the World Bank and Indian government signed a loan agreement of $150 million for the e-delivery of public services in India. The loan has been granted as the e-delivery of public services development policy loan to be utilised under the national e-governance plan of India (NEGP).

Although the intentions are good yet the final outcome is not difficult to predict. India has a very poor track record of policy formulation and its implementation. For instance, policies pertaining to cyber law, cyber security, encryption, telecom, telecom security, mobile security, etc are still missing.

Further, India also has a poor track record of e-governance utilisation and providing of electronic delivery of services in India. We have no legal enablement of ICT systems in India and legal framework for e-delivery of services in India is also missing. In fact, as per e-governance experts of India, e-governance in India is dying. Without a mandatory e-governance services in India, e-delivery of services in India cannot be achieved.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India, “The Government and Indian Bureaucrats need to change their mindset and stress more upon outcomes and services rather than mere ICT procurement. India needs a services-based approach that is not only transparent but also backed by a more efficient and willing Government. Presently the Bureaucrats and Government of India are in a “resistance mode” towards novel and effective e-governance policies and strategies and they are merely computerising traditional official functions only. This is benefiting neither the Government nor the citizens and is resulting in wastage of thousands of crores of public money and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank Grants amount”.

“The Governmental will and leadership is missing in India. To worsen the situation the Government of India is concentrating more upon the image rather than upon the end results. The grassroots level action is missing and the benefits of ICT are not reaching to the under privileged and deserving masses due to defective ICT strategies and policies of Indian Government. India is suffering from the “vicious circle” of defective e-governance, as the basic input .i.e. governance itself is poor. India needs a “virtuous circle” of e-governance through good governance that would have multiplication and amplification effect upon e-governance efforts of Indian Government, says Praveen Dalal.

E-delivery of public services in India is missing and World Bank is not at all interested in establishing transparency and accountability in Indian NEGP. World Bank must ensure accountability of Indian NEGP in order to show that its loans are actually meant for growth and development of Indian masses rather than benefiting few politicians and bureaucrats as is happening right now.

In these circumstance, the e-delivery of public services development policy loan would just add to the woes of Indians as this type of e-governance would be a source of corruption itself rather than removing the mass corruption existing in India. No time in the past the need for a strong and effective Jan Lokpal Act is felt more than the present circumstances where neither India nor International organisations like United Nations, World Bank, UNDP, etc are questioning the acts and omissions of Indian government.

India Has Become An E-Police State

This is the updated version of my previous article on similar topic. Cyber law of India is incorporated in the information technology act, 2000 (IT Act 2000) that was drastically amended through the information technology amendment act 2008 (IT Act 2008). The cyber law of India has become so offensive and useless that it requires an urgent repeal. Instead of following the right path, India has chosen to become an e-police state.

Suggestions have been given in the past that United Nations (UN) must protect human rights in cyberspace as well. However, UN is not serious about protecting human rights in cyberspace. Countries like India are taking advantage of this void created by inaction on the part of UN.

Human Rights in Cyberspace are outlawed in India, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. In fact, the IT Act, 2008 has made the sole Cyber Law of India susceptible to the attacks of “Unconstitutionality” as it is now openly and blatantly violating various Fundamental Rights as incorporated in the Constitution of India, informs Dalal.

Cyber law of India has been doomed to its detriment and civil liberties of Indian citizens have been at their nadir. All this has happened due to lack of insight and capabilities of Indian legislation makers. The vested interests have overshadowed public interest and the sole cyber law of India has become an instrumentality for mass deprivation and grave suppression of cyber rights of Indians. E-surveillance in India has come as a death knell for privacy rights in India.

Despite the assurances of the law minister Mr. Veerappa Molly regarding further amendments in the IT Act 2008, the same has been notified. This has officially given India the status of a chronic e-surveillance State. The unreasonable and unconstitutional e-surveillance and draconic police state powers conferred by the IT Act 2008 have become the law of the land.

Indians have ceased to hold some of the basic human rights in cyberspace and the omnipresent state powers have doomed the Indian cyber sphere. The accountability is missing and the reasonableness deliberately scrapped off from the provisions contained in the IT Act 2008. Even basic level encryption that is absolutely essential for safe and secure cyber space transactions has been under scrutiny. We have neither encryption standards in India nor encryption laws and regulations in India.

It is ironic that the Ministry of Law, Government of India and Mr. Molly finally gave away the freedom and security of India netizens in the hands of otherwise incompetent and inexperienced officials. How the Law Ministry allowed these unconstitutional provisions to be passed is still a bigger mystery?

The IT Act 2008 is a dark moment for the Indians wherein their rights have been curtailed on the one hand and the law has been made impotent on the other. Most of the offences have been made bailable and the deterrent has been lost forever. The misuse of the unbridled powers is very likely to happen as there are no safeguards and reasonable procedures that can prevent the same.

What would be the next step? Perhaps we would not be allowed to write articles like these in future as well if we keep on sleeping like we have been doing in the past. Alternatively, we must use self defence in cyberspace to defeat unconstitutional and illegal e-surveillance and Internet censorship exercises of Indian government and its agencies.

World Bank Is Fooling India Or Being Fooled By India

World Bank and India have been engaged in many projects of national and international importance. However, one project that has no significance and practically has no hope of implementation is mandatory delivery of e-governance services in India.

The Government of India and the World Bank today signed a Loan Agreement of $150 million for the E-Delivery of Public Services Development Policy Loan under the National E-Governance Plan (NEGP). However, which e-governance World Bank and India are talking about is still a mystery. E-Governance in India has been a big failure and there are no chances of its revival for at least 10 more years. India’s ranking in e-readiness and e-governance are declining year after year and India is still celebrating its paper victories.

Almost all e-governance projects of India have failed to materialise. This has happened because India has neither a mandatory legal framework for e-governance nor are there any policies or strategies for effective e-governance. Even the proposed draft electronic services delivery bill 2011 of India is mere eyewash and nothing more. The truth is that e-governance in India is dying.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India, “The Government and Indian Bureaucrats need to change their mindset and stress more upon outcomes and services rather than mere ICT procurement. India needs a services-based approach that is not only transparent but also backed by a more efficient and willing Government. Presently the Bureaucrats and Government of India are in a “resistance mode” towards novel and effective e-governance policies and strategies and they are merely computerising traditional official functions only. This is benefiting neither the Government nor the citizens and is resulting in wastage of thousands of crores of public money and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank Grants amount”.

“The Governmental will and leadership is missing in India. To worsen the situation the Government of India is concentrating more upon the image rather than upon the end results. The grassroots level action is missing and the benefits of ICT are not reaching to the under privileged and deserving masses due to defective ICT strategies and policies of Indian Government. India is suffering from the “vicious circle” of defective e-governance, as the basic input .i.e. governance itself is poor. India needs a “virtuous circle” of e-governance through good governance that would have multiplication and amplification effect upon e-governance efforts of Indian Government, says Praveen Dalal.

E-delivery of public services in India is missing and World Bank is not at all interested in establishing transparency and accountability in Indian NEGP. World Bank must ensure accountability of Indian NEGP in order to show that its loans are actually meant for growth and development of Indian masses rather than benefiting few politicians and bureaucrats as is happening right now. Perhaps a strong and effective Jan Lokpal Act 2011 would bring some respite in this indifferent atmosphere created by Indian government and World Bank.

Aadhar Project And UIDAI Are Most Evil Projects Of India

Unique identification project of India (UID project of India) or Aadhar project of India and its implementing authority unique identification authority of India (UIDAI) are the worst e-surveillance instrumentalities of India. Irrespective of what Nandan Nilekani and Indian government says, Aadhar project and UIDAI are serving a very vicious, evil and nefarious objective of e-surveillance without procedural safeguards.

India has no constitutionally sound lawful interception law and phone tapping law. India is still using the colonial laws that were considered to be draconian by India itself. In fact, these laws for phone tapping and e-surveillance are going expressly against the mandates of Indian Constitution.

Surprisingly, neither the Supreme Court of India nor the Parliament of India thought it fit to remedy the situation. Although Supreme Court acknowledged that technology has threatened the privacy rights of Indians yet it has not done more in this regard.

Indian citizens need to use proactive self defence to safeguard their cyberspace dealings from cyber intrusions committed by cyber criminals and government and its agencies. The use of self defence and deterrence in Indian cyberspace is absolutely required since India lacks laws to protect civil liberties in cyberspace. Even the United Nations (UN) has failed to take notice of this serious situation existing in India and world wide.

Instead of enacting suitable laws to protect civil liberty of Indians in cyberspace, Indian Parliament has imposed the information technology amendment act, 2008 (IT Act 2008) upon Indians. This made the sole cyber law of India an instrumentality of e-surveillance in the hand of Indian government and its agencies.

Human Rights in Cyberspace are outlawed in India, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. In fact, the IT Act, 2008 has made the sole Cyber Law of India susceptible to the attacks of “Unconstitutionality” as it is now openly and blatantly violating various Fundamental Rights as incorporated in the Constitution of India, informs Dalal.

It is high time to scrap projects like Aadhar and repeal the cyber law of India. In the absence of the same, nothing is better than using self defence against Indian government and its agencies.

Proactive Self Defense In Cyberspace

Self defence in cyberspace is a concept whose time has come at both national and international level. At the national level of India self defence is required not only against cyber criminals but also against our own over zealous and e-surveillance oriented Indian government. Suggestions have been given in the past that United Nations (UN) must protect human rights in cyberspace as well. However, UN is not serious about protecting human rights in cyberspace.

At the national level, Indian government acquired itself unregulated, illegal and unconstitutional e-surveillance, Internet censorship and website blocking powers with no procedural safeguards. The information technology act, 2000 (IT Act 2000) was amended through the information technology amendment act 2008 (IT Act 2008) and this amendment gave unconstitutional and illegal powers to Indian government and its agencies. With the notification of the IT Act, 2008, the journey from welfare state to a police state was completed for India.

Human Rights in Cyberspace are outlawed in India, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. In fact, the IT Act, 2008 has made the sole Cyber Law of India susceptible to the attacks of “Unconstitutionality” as it is now openly and blatantly violating various Fundamental Rights as incorporated in the Constitution of India, informs Dalal.

Instances of website blocking in India and Internet censorship in India have increased a lot. What is more worrisome is the fact that e-surveillance and Internet censorship in India have increased without any lawful interception law in India. Lawful interception law in India is missing and phone tapping in India is done in an unconstitutional manner.

Of all e-surveillance project, nothing is worst than the Aadhar project of India and its implementing unique identification authority of India (UIDAI) headed by Nandan Nilekani. Irrespective of what Nandan Nilekani and Indian government says, Aadhar project and UIDAI are serving a very vicious, evil and nefarious objective of e-surveillance without procedural safeguards. Surprisingly, even Google is censoring results pertaining to Aadhar project and UIDAI and is messing up with search placement results.

Recently, the domain of Blogspot was blocked once again though for a very less duration. However, the reasons for blocking of Blogspot Domain in India are more worrisome as they smack the e-surveillance nature of Indian government. We must fight website blocking and Internet censorship in India with proactive self defence measures keeping in mind the limits when self defence in cyberspace ceases to exist.

India has an exclusive Techno Legal Centre for Protection of Human Rights In Indian Cyberspace (HRPIC). It is spearheaded by Praveen Dalal, who is also the CEO of HRPIC. Indian Government must maintain a “Delicate Balance” between National Security requirements and Protection of Fundamental Rights, suggests Dalal.

European Union And Indian Free Trade Agreement And IPR Issues

India and European Union (EU) are contemplating entering into a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) covering many crucial issues. One of the issues pertains to Intellectual Property Rights Protection in India to foreign Goods and Services.

Intellectual Property Rights in India (IPRs in India) are governed by respective legislation and at the International level they are governed by TRIPS Agreement, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT and IP law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal specialist of India. Now EU is insisting upon “TRIPS Plus Conditions” that India is not interested in agreeing to, says Dalal.

India’s stand on highly sensitive IPRs issues has been formulated by the high-powered Trade and Economic Relations Committee (TERC) at its recent meeting Chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The Prime Minister firmly directed that the Indian side shall not take on any obligation beyond the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and domestic law,” Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement after the conclusion of the meeting.The TERC comprises Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Economic Advisory Council Chairman C Rangarajan.

India has also been expressing concern over the growing efforts of certain developed countries including EU countries to enact Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA), which contains some provisions relating to enforcement of Intellectual Properties (IP) but are not within the WTO framework.

If EU wishes to have a fruitful and fair FTA, it must ensure a “Level Playing Field”, suggests Dalal. If EU is adamant upon “TRIPS Plus” condition, not much can be expected from the forthcoming negotiations, suggests Dalal.

India must also keep in mind that pharmaceuticals is an area that it cannot take lightly as lives of many are closely related to the same. Let us hope India would not succumb to the pressure of EU.

Google Is Censoring Aadhar Project And UIDAI Related Results

Till now it is no more a secret that Google is censoring web results, especially news results, in India either on its own or at the instance of Indian government. In the past many of our posts on Aadhar project of India or UID project of India and unique identification authority of India (UIDAI) have been censored, dumped and tampered with by Google.

Aadhar Project and UIDAI has many Weaknesses and Fallacies that make it Illegal and Unconstitutional from the very beginning, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Both Aadhar Project and UIDAI are Illegal and Unconstitutional yet India Government is doing it level best to “impose it” upon Indians, says Dalal.

In an effort to give Aadhar project a positive image, Indian government is trying every method to suppress the opposite views and censoring of web results and news results is just one of them.

The latest to add to this web censorship list is another article on Aadhar project and UIDAI titled the evil intents of Aadhar project and UIDAI. Google shows news results at news search and search engine results pages (SERPS) as well. It also shows Twitter tweets in the realtime results. The abovementioned article on Aadhar project and UIDAI was temporarily removed from SERPS mentioning news results on these topics as well as permanently from the realtime results, with or without the knowledge of Twitter. Although the news article remained in the main news results yet it was pushed far below than it deserved.

Ever since the cyber law of India has been amended through the information technology amendment act 2008 (IT Act 2000), Indian cyber law has become a draconian tool in the hands of Indian government and its agencies. Indian government is censoring and controlling information that it considers to be controversial.

The bigger question is whether Google is helping India in this illegal and unconstitutional exercise of Indian government or private persons or organisations working for the Indian government? The answer definitely seems to be yes and with so many news items and Blog posts musing about this fact, it is difficult to believe that Google is not aware of this situation.

The Nandan Nilekani led Aadhar project and UIDAI is unconstitutional as it is neither supported by any law nor it has any safeguards for protecting civil liberties of Indians. Initially, UIDAI said that UID number would be optional but now government is making it mandatory both directly and indirectly. Further, by suppressing the public inputs, objections and suggestions, Indian government is just proving the points that Aadhar and UIDAI are most offensive tools of civil liberty violations in India.