Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
if (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 32923,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'metaKeywords' => 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 32923
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S'
$metaKeywords = 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 32923,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'metaKeywords' => 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 32923
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S'
$metaKeywords = 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eed17e74a71-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 32923,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'metaKeywords' => 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 32923
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta &amp; Prasanna S'
$metaKeywords = 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services &mdash; in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, &ldquo;purely voluntary&rdquo; even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$cookies = []
$values = [
(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 32923,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S',
'metaKeywords' => 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 32923,
'title' => 'Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br />
</em><br />
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br />
<br />
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br />
<br />
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 13 January, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 4681008,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 32923
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S'
$metaKeywords = 'aadhaar,uid,Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,Benefits and Services) Act (2016),PDS,mgnrega,Supreme Court'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders<br /></em><br />One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.<br /><br />In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.<br /><br />During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/project-of-defiance-mandatory-aadhaar-project-pds-schemes-mgnrega-4471416/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
latest-news-updates/project-of-defiance-apar-gupta-prasanna-s-4681008.html"/>
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S | Im4change.org
Project Of Defiance -Apar Gupta & Prasanna S
-The Indian Express
Governments are making Aadhaar mandatory in contravention of court orders
One reason for the controversy surrounding the Aadhaar project is the pending litigation against it in the Supreme Court. The cases draw on substantive critiques, including exclusion and deprivation caused by the usage of Aadhaar in provisioning essential services such as the PDS and MGNREGA, breaches of individual privacy and threats to national and individual security in the way the project has been conceived and implemented. Such concerns are not pure policy matters but interact with constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has passed a series of interim orders to prohibit the imposition and limit the application of Aadhaar. However, concerns as to the compliance of such orders has been rising as various government ministries, departments and other statutory bodies continue to link Aadhaar to the provision of services — in many instances, even making it mandatory. In any litigation, the interest of a court is in ensuring that its final judgement is implemented in letter and spirit. Such determinations take time and a common method to ensure compliance is by preventing parties from disturbing the subject matter of the litigation. Acting on these well-established legal principles, the SC has passed a series of orders on the Aadhaar project as it continues to consider the petitions.
In August 2015, the court issued a set of directions making it clear that Aadhaar was not a precondition for the delivery of any state benefits and further limiting its use to PDS schemes. Aadhaar was directed to be optional, and even such voluntary use was allowed only for the distribution of foodgrains and cooking fuels. Such a restraint was passed after the Union government took a stand that the constitutional basis of the right to privacy did not clearly emerge in case law. Acting on this, the court referred the Aadhaar petitions to a larger bench. Such a bench has yet to be constituted with the larger Aadhaar case hanging in the balance.
During the pendency of the case, two significant events occurred. On October 15, 2015, 11 state governments and institutions went back to the SC seeking permission to use Aadhaar beyond PDS schemes. The court agreed to relax its order but limited the use of Aadhaar to four schemes, in addition to PDS and cooking fuel allowed by the earlier order. It again clarified the use of Aadhaar would be, “purely voluntary” even while Aadhaar is used in these schemes. Then, on March 16, 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was passed, having been rushed through Parliament as a money bill. Given that the Aadhaar scheme operated on the basis of a executive notification till such date, some claimed the Aadhaar Act filled in a legislative vacuum. Others criticised it on process and substance. Such concerns have given rise to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act which the court has agreed to hear, but it will have to wait till the larger question of the right to privacy is decided. Hence, compliance with the interim directions becomes vital.
