[HumJanenge] ML: UIDAI’s contracts kept hidden behind non-disclosure clauses

UIDAI's contracts are all in public domain and are being supplied free
of cost under section 4 on request.

The problem is that MONEYLIFE does not know how to frame their
questions / applications / appeals properly, and the CPIO easily
brushes them aside using 8.1.d.

I suggest that they approach somebody like Veeresh Malik to draft
their RTI's (if they haven't done so already <smile>)

Sarbajit

On 3/16/12, vishalkudchadkar <v_kudz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.moneylife.in/article/uidais-contracts-kept-hidden-behind-non-disclosure-clauses/24257.html
>
> How can any office of the government pay taxpayers' money to private
> companies and not disclose the contracts to taxpayers?
>
> In response to a RTI (Right to Information) query seeking copies of the
> Unique Identification Authority of India's (UIDAI) contracts with four
> private companies—two foreign and two Indian—the authority claimed that
> these could not be furnished since they have signed non-disclosure
> agreements with them. The UIDAI is set up and functioning without the
> sanction of law. It enters into contracts with private companies, including
> foreign ones, pays them out of the exchequer and refuses to furnish copies
> of the contracts. Are not these contracts illegal? How could the UIDAI sign
> contracts on behalf of Planning Commission? Assuming, but not admitting that
> the UIDAI is empowered to enter into the contracts, are not the
> non-disclosure agreements illegal? How could any office of the government
> pay taxpayers' money to private companies and not disclose the contracts
> (purpose for which the money is paid) to taxpayers?
>
> The UIDAI has been informed that one of the foreign companies has links with
> intelligence agencies from a foreign country. This information failed to
> obtain any reaction from the UIDAI. The response to an RTI application
> seeking information on foreign company contractors was even more
> inexplicable. The UIDAI stated that it did not know the country of origin of
> these contractors and is not concerned about such facts. It added that as
> long as the bidding contractors had an office in India or an Indian partner
> and had sent a RFP, the Authority would not bother with origins. That is
> saying a lot about the kind of due diligence UIDAI has done in choosing
> contractors for "India's prestigious world's largest database project" of
> the country's biometric and demographic information.
>
> In answer to another RTI query to furnish copies of contracts pertaining to
> three empanelled Enrolling Agencies (EAs), the UIDAI did not furnish the
> copies of applications submitted by these companies and minutes of decision
> to empanel them. Instead, the UIDAI replied stating that the companies "were
> empanelled as EAs during the year 2010-11 on the basis of eligibility
> conditions provided in RFE-2010 and subject to satisfying other terms and
> conditions." Such obfuscation is characteristic of the UIDAI's
> "transparency". One of the three companies is a tea estate company. How does
> a tea estate company satisfy "eligibility conditions" for empanelment, as EA
> is mysterious, until one reads the RFE. The RFE states, "All organizations
> (single agency/consortium) interested in undertaking enrolment activities
> for the UIDAI project shall be empanelled under Level T1, provided they meet
> the general eligibility criteria". It is a free for all; anyone and everyone
> can join the melee of the enrolment process to capture biometric and
> demographic data of the people of this country.
>
>
> The UIDAI magnanimously added that the RFE-2010 runs into 74 pages and that
> the same could be provided at the cost of Rs2 per A4 size page. The UIDAI
> was careful to point out that it has not signed any contract with any of the
> EAs. It stated, "It is the sole responsibility of the registrar to assign
> work order subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions mentioned in
> Request for Quotations". Originally, particulars of 209 EAs were published
> on the UIDAI website. The number has since reduced to around 180. EAs
> empanelment is renewed yearly. No reasons are available as to why the number
> of EAs is reduced.
>
> Press and media have reported several instances of fraud and crimes by EAs.
> FIRs have been filed. Nothing is known about what happened to these cases.
> Police and media are equally silent on this, and strangely so. One would
> have thought that the stories on them would make juicy media stories. The
> UIDAI too, is not forthcoming on details of these cases. An RTI query
> elicited a vague response from the UIDAI, almost disowning responsibility
> for what the EAs do. The Authority claimed that this is the responsibility
> of registrars.
>
> Executive arrogance
>
> Several instances of the government, which is the executive estate of our
> democracy, acting contrary to constitutional and parliamentary norms happen
> with discomforting regularity. The government's actions in the UID scheme
> are typical of political arrogance translating into the executive domain.
> Firstly, The UIDAI has been functioning sans legal mandate ever since it was
> set up through an executive order in 2009. The UIDAI claims that such
> executive action is justified through constitutional provisos; a claim, if
> tested, might wither in the light of judicial scrutiny. If the executive
> function unchecked by Parliament, spend public money, intrude into people's
> lives and commercialize people's data, then Parliament would become a
> redundant institution.
>
> The government's logic is befuddling and sometimes, appears driven by
> expediency and political convenience. For example, when `Team Anna' was
> pushing the Jan Lokpal Bill, the government, as well as several politicians
> of varying hues, waxed eloquent on the supremacy of Parliament. However,
> when it comes to the UID project, expediency takes over and Parliament
> propriety is conveniently forgotten. The executive has a highly selective
> approach towards such niceties as legality, honouring the institution of
> Parliament and accountability to the people.
>
> Contrast this with the action of the UK government, when it scrapped the
> National ID Card Act of that country. They have the problems of terrorism
> and illegal immigration, for which the Blair government thought that a
> biometric national ID card system was the answer. They passed the Act,
> appointed contractors and went ahead. The new government scrapped the Act
> and the project. In doing so, the UK government said, "We propose to do
> government business as servants of the people, not their masters".
>
> Our "aam aadmi" government seems to imagine that they are feudal lords. It
> is time people reclaim sovereignty.
>
> (Mathew Thomas is a former defence services officer and missile scientist
> turned civic activist, campaigning against state database control of the
> people.)
>
>