| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why admitted “urgency” in the matter of Right to Privacy in Aadhaar case
To
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
Subject- Why admitted “urgency” in the matter of Right to Privacy in
Aadhaar case merits attention of a Constitution Bench?
Aadhaar case merits attention of a Constitution Bench?
Sir,
With due respect this is to humbly draw your urgent attention towards
the second order of Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench of five judge headed
by Chief Justice of India which reads: “Since there is some urgency
in the matter, we request the learned Chief Justice of India to
constitute a Bench for final hearing of these matters at the earliest”
in its order dated 15th October, 2015 in the Writ Petition(s) (Civil)
No(s). 494/2012 wherein a former judge, a former defence scientist and
a former Major General from engineering branch are among the
petitioners in supreme national interest. Their concerns were
initially echoed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme
Court of India, Prof. Romila Thapar, Prof. Upendra Baxi and other
eminent citizens in a Statement of Concerns dated September 28, 2010
and reiterated in August 2015 in a Public Statement by Prof. Anil
Sadgopal, noted educationist, Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran and other
concerned citizens.
the second order of Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench of five judge headed
by Chief Justice of India which reads: “Since there is some urgency
in the matter, we request the learned Chief Justice of India to
constitute a Bench for final hearing of these matters at the earliest”
in its order dated 15th October, 2015 in the Writ Petition(s) (Civil)
No(s). 494/2012 wherein a former judge, a former defence scientist and
a former Major General from engineering branch are among the
petitioners in supreme national interest. Their concerns were
initially echoed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme
Court of India, Prof. Romila Thapar, Prof. Upendra Baxi and other
eminent citizens in a Statement of Concerns dated September 28, 2010
and reiterated in August 2015 in a Public Statement by Prof. Anil
Sadgopal, noted educationist, Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran and other
concerned citizens.
We submit that on August 11, 2015, the first order of three judge
bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had directed “the Registry to
place these matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders” for authoritative decision “by a Bench of
appropriate strength” disregarding the vehement opposition of Shri
Shyam Divan and Shri Gopal Subramanium and, learned senior counsels on
behalf of the petitioners to the suggestion that this batch of matters
is required to be heard by a larger bench. This Bench allowed itself
to be persuaded by the suggestion of the learned Attorney General that
this batch of matters is required to be heard by a larger Bench of
this Court as these matters throw up for debate important questions –
(i) whether there is any “right to privacy” guaranteed under our
Constitution. (ii) If such a right exists, what is the source and what
are the contours of such a right as there is no express provision in
the Constitution adumbrating the right to privacy. It is therefore
submitted that these batch of matters are required to be heard and
decided by a larger bench of at least five Judges in view of the
mandate contained under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India.
bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had directed “the Registry to
place these matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders” for authoritative decision “by a Bench of
appropriate strength” disregarding the vehement opposition of Shri
Shyam Divan and Shri Gopal Subramanium and, learned senior counsels on
behalf of the petitioners to the suggestion that this batch of matters
is required to be heard by a larger bench. This Bench allowed itself
to be persuaded by the suggestion of the learned Attorney General that
this batch of matters is required to be heard by a larger Bench of
this Court as these matters throw up for debate important questions –
(i) whether there is any “right to privacy” guaranteed under our
Constitution. (ii) If such a right exists, what is the source and what
are the contours of such a right as there is no express provision in
the Constitution adumbrating the right to privacy. It is therefore
submitted that these batch of matters are required to be heard and
decided by a larger bench of at least five Judges in view of the
mandate contained under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India.
We submit that Article 145(3) states that the minimum number of Judges
who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article
143 shall be five: Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal
under any of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132
consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of
the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal
of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a
Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of
deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of
the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion.
who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article
143 shall be five: Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal
under any of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132
consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of
the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal
of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a
Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of
deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of
the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion.
We submit that the three judge bench observed: “All the matters
require to be heard finally. List all matters for final hearing after
the Constitution Bench is over” in its August 11, 2015 order. It
implies that all the petitions, transfer petitions and applications
are pending before the Hon’ble Court awaiting the decision of the
Constitution Bench in the matter of Right to Privacy.
require to be heard finally. List all matters for final hearing after
the Constitution Bench is over” in its August 11, 2015 order. It
implies that all the petitions, transfer petitions and applications
are pending before the Hon’ble Court awaiting the decision of the
Constitution Bench in the matter of Right to Privacy.
Given the fact that the Hon’ble Court’s October 15, 2015 order was by
a five judge bench, it is being understood that the formation of nine
or 11 judges Constitution Bench has become necessary. A care reading
of previous judgments underlines that Hon’ble Court does not need to
send the matter of Right of Privacy to a bench larger than five
judges, because five judges can interpret the rulings by six judge
bench in Kharak Singh v. State of UP and others, and the seven judge
ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Another, validate the five
judge bench of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant
Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors, and confirm
the three judge ruling in Gobind v. State of M.P. & Another, in R.
Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, Sharada v.
Dharampal, Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr and the two judge
District Collector v. Canara Bank cases. The eight judge ruling in
M.P. Singh & Others v. Satish Chandra & Others case is clearly
inapplicable, and the five judge bench can assert that it does not
need to be overruled to decide that there is a Right to Privacy.
a five judge bench, it is being understood that the formation of nine
or 11 judges Constitution Bench has become necessary. A care reading
of previous judgments underlines that Hon’ble Court does not need to
send the matter of Right of Privacy to a bench larger than five
judges, because five judges can interpret the rulings by six judge
bench in Kharak Singh v. State of UP and others, and the seven judge
ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Another, validate the five
judge bench of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant
Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors, and confirm
the three judge ruling in Gobind v. State of M.P. & Another, in R.
Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, Sharada v.
Dharampal, Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr and the two judge
District Collector v. Canara Bank cases. The eight judge ruling in
M.P. Singh & Others v. Satish Chandra & Others case is clearly
inapplicable, and the five judge bench can assert that it does not
need to be overruled to decide that there is a Right to Privacy.
We wish to draw your attention towards the observation of
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on The National
Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its 48 page report. At
page no. 28 it reads: “The Committee are constrained to point out that
in the instant case, since the law making is underway with the bill
being pending, any executive action is as unethical and violative of
Parliament’s prerogatives as promulgation of an ordinance while one of
the Houses of Parliament being in session.” At page no. 32, it reads:
“the United Kingdom shelved its Identity Cards Project for a number of
reasons, which included:- (a) huge cost involved and possible cost
overruns; (b) too complex; (c) untested, unreliable and unsafe
technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of
citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures,
which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs.” It
is noteworthy that it took cognizance of the Report of the London
School of Economics on UK’s Identity Project inter-alia which states
that “…..identity systems may create a range of new and unforeseen
problems……the risk of failure in the current proposals is therefore
magnified to the point where the scheme should be regarded as a
potential danger to the public interest and to the legal rights of
individuals”. As these findings are very much relevant and applicable
to the UID scheme, they should have been seriously considered, the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance observed. Citizens Forum
for Civil Liberties (CFCL) had appeared before this Parliamentary
Committee to give its testimony.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on The National
Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its 48 page report. At
page no. 28 it reads: “The Committee are constrained to point out that
in the instant case, since the law making is underway with the bill
being pending, any executive action is as unethical and violative of
Parliament’s prerogatives as promulgation of an ordinance while one of
the Houses of Parliament being in session.” At page no. 32, it reads:
“the United Kingdom shelved its Identity Cards Project for a number of
reasons, which included:- (a) huge cost involved and possible cost
overruns; (b) too complex; (c) untested, unreliable and unsafe
technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of
citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures,
which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs.” It
is noteworthy that it took cognizance of the Report of the London
School of Economics on UK’s Identity Project inter-alia which states
that “…..identity systems may create a range of new and unforeseen
problems……the risk of failure in the current proposals is therefore
magnified to the point where the scheme should be regarded as a
potential danger to the public interest and to the legal rights of
individuals”. As these findings are very much relevant and applicable
to the UID scheme, they should have been seriously considered, the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance observed. Citizens Forum
for Civil Liberties (CFCL) had appeared before this Parliamentary
Committee to give its testimony.
We submit that Government has admitted before this Parliamentary
Standing Committee that the issue of unique identification numbers may
involve certain issues, such as (a) security and confidentiality of
information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of information so
collected in certain cases, (b) impersonation by certain individuals
at the time of enrolment for issue of unique identification numbers,
(c) unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository
(CIDR), (d) manipulation of biometric information, at page no. 7 of
the report.
Standing Committee that the issue of unique identification numbers may
involve certain issues, such as (a) security and confidentiality of
information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of information so
collected in certain cases, (b) impersonation by certain individuals
at the time of enrolment for issue of unique identification numbers,
(c) unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository
(CIDR), (d) manipulation of biometric information, at page no. 7 of
the report.
The Parliamentary Committee observed, “The collection of biometric
information and its linkage with personal information of individuals
without amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the
Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity
Cards) Rules, 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate
legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament” at
page no. 30 of the report.
information and its linkage with personal information of individuals
without amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the
Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity
Cards) Rules, 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate
legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament” at
page no. 30 of the report.
It noticed that a project namely, Bharatiya – Automated Finger Print
Identification System (AFSI), was launched in January, 2009, being
funded by the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, for collection of biometric
information of the people of the country. Asked to clarify as to
whether the biometric information (finger prints) being collected
under the Bharatiya – AFSI project could also be used by the UIDAI,
the Ministry have submitted that-
“The biometrics required for the aadhaar project are iris, ten finger
prints and photograph. To ensure uniqueness of the individual, it is
essential that the biometrics captured are as per the specifications
laid down by the Biometrics Standards Committee. The quality, nature
and manner of collection of biometric data by other biometric projects
may not be of the nature that can be used for the purpose of the
aadhaar scheme and hence it may not be possible to use the
fingerprints captured under the Bhartiya-AFSI project.”
Identification System (AFSI), was launched in January, 2009, being
funded by the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, for collection of biometric
information of the people of the country. Asked to clarify as to
whether the biometric information (finger prints) being collected
under the Bharatiya – AFSI project could also be used by the UIDAI,
the Ministry have submitted that-
“The biometrics required for the aadhaar project are iris, ten finger
prints and photograph. To ensure uniqueness of the individual, it is
essential that the biometrics captured are as per the specifications
laid down by the Biometrics Standards Committee. The quality, nature
and manner of collection of biometric data by other biometric projects
may not be of the nature that can be used for the purpose of the
aadhaar scheme and hence it may not be possible to use the
fingerprints captured under the Bhartiya-AFSI project.”
We submit that as a consequence foreign transnational corporations
like Accenture, Safran Group and Ernst & Young has been given the task
with regard to biometric data of Indian residents.
like Accenture, Safran Group and Ernst & Young has been given the task
with regard to biometric data of Indian residents.
We submit that UIDAI had set up a Biometrics Standards Committee which
revealed that ‘the biometrics will be captured for authentication by
government departments and commercial organisations at the time of
service delivery.’ The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not
defined. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the ‘UID number
will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements’.
It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would
only provide ‘aid’ in identification. In fact it makes right to having
rights conditional on having biometric aadhaar.
revealed that ‘the biometrics will be captured for authentication by
government departments and commercial organisations at the time of
service delivery.’ The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not
defined. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the ‘UID number
will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements’.
It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would
only provide ‘aid’ in identification. In fact it makes right to having
rights conditional on having biometric aadhaar.
We submit that Biometrics Standards Committee had categorically stated
that UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian application” but the
order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has been extended
to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first adopted
by USA’s Department of Defence, later by NATO. It has subsequently
been pushed through World Bank’s etransform Initiative in partnership
with France, South Korea, Gemalto, IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and
Pfizer. L1 was a US a company when it got a contract from UIDAI but it
got purchased by French Conglomerate Safran Group after security
clearance by US Government. This constitutes breach of national
security as no such clearance was granted by Government of India. Some
of these companies have partnership with Chinese Government as well.
that UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian application” but the
order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has been extended
to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first adopted
by USA’s Department of Defence, later by NATO. It has subsequently
been pushed through World Bank’s etransform Initiative in partnership
with France, South Korea, Gemalto, IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and
Pfizer. L1 was a US a company when it got a contract from UIDAI but it
got purchased by French Conglomerate Safran Group after security
clearance by US Government. This constitutes breach of national
security as no such clearance was granted by Government of India. Some
of these companies have partnership with Chinese Government as well.
We submit that across the globe very stringent data privacy law has
been framed wherein one’s personal data cannot be used by anyone
including the government without your specific consent. But in India
there is no data protection law. Aadhaar is akin to a piece of collar
which the transnational powers want to tie on the neck of Indian
citizens. Government has allowed itself to be misled and it has failed
to protect personal sensitive information which has already gone to
foreign companies.
been framed wherein one’s personal data cannot be used by anyone
including the government without your specific consent. But in India
there is no data protection law. Aadhaar is akin to a piece of collar
which the transnational powers want to tie on the neck of Indian
citizens. Government has allowed itself to be misled and it has failed
to protect personal sensitive information which has already gone to
foreign companies.
It must be recalled that Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister had
distributed Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar numbers among the
villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on
29th September 2010. “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties
in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable
single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness
of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger
Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number”.
It has now come to light as per a RTI reply of April 2015 that out of
83.5 crore aadhaar numbers issued so far, only 2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 %
comprised of them who did not have a pre-existing ID proof. It shows
how Indians were taken for a ride.
distributed Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar numbers among the
villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on
29th September 2010. “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties
in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable
single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness
of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger
Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number”.
It has now come to light as per a RTI reply of April 2015 that out of
83.5 crore aadhaar numbers issued so far, only 2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 %
comprised of them who did not have a pre-existing ID proof. It shows
how Indians were taken for a ride.
It may be noted that even the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920,
of colonial vintage, reads: “The object of this bill is to provide
legal authority for taking measurements, finger impressions,
footprints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in
connection with, certain offences.” According to the Identification of
Prisoners Act, 1920, at the time of the acquittal of the prisoner, his
biometric data is required to be destroyed. Since 1857, fingerprint
identification methods have been used by police agencies in India and
around the world to identify suspected rebels, political dissidents
and criminals. The method is unfolding to indiscriminately profile
citizens in general to identify them. The UID/aadhaar project,
however, stores the biometric data forever.
of colonial vintage, reads: “The object of this bill is to provide
legal authority for taking measurements, finger impressions,
footprints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in
connection with, certain offences.” According to the Identification of
Prisoners Act, 1920, at the time of the acquittal of the prisoner, his
biometric data is required to be destroyed. Since 1857, fingerprint
identification methods have been used by police agencies in India and
around the world to identify suspected rebels, political dissidents
and criminals. The method is unfolding to indiscriminately profile
citizens in general to identify them. The UID/aadhaar project,
however, stores the biometric data forever.
We submit that countries like China, Australia, UK and France have
also rejected such biometric data based identification projects.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Philippines has also ruled against Aadhaar
like project.
also rejected such biometric data based identification projects.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Philippines has also ruled against Aadhaar
like project.
We submit that it is apparent that transnational entities and
governments captured by them have declared an open war against
citizens’ sensitive personal information like biometric data that
paves the way for the enslavement of present and future generation of
Indians through Aadhaar database that lies on cloud beyond Indian
jurisdiction. Such initiatives must be stopped and boycotted else it
will spread its tentacles in every sphere of life and mobility in the
country.
governments captured by them have declared an open war against
citizens’ sensitive personal information like biometric data that
paves the way for the enslavement of present and future generation of
Indians through Aadhaar database that lies on cloud beyond Indian
jurisdiction. Such initiatives must be stopped and boycotted else it
will spread its tentacles in every sphere of life and mobility in the
country.
We submit that Central Government itself has filed several written
affidavits in the Hon’ble Court contending that Right to Privacy is a
fundamental right.
affidavits in the Hon’ble Court contending that Right to Privacy is a
fundamental right.
We submit that there is a compelling logic for Hon’ble Court to reject
implicit or explicit support for tracking, profiling, databasing and
mortgaging of citizens’ rights and their sovereignty under the
dictates of their donors and non-state actors. The biometric idea is
aimed at making citizens transparent before the all mighty Governments
so that Government, their servant can remain opaque to safeguard the
interests of undemocratic and ungovernable social control technology
companies.
implicit or explicit support for tracking, profiling, databasing and
mortgaging of citizens’ rights and their sovereignty under the
dictates of their donors and non-state actors. The biometric idea is
aimed at making citizens transparent before the all mighty Governments
so that Government, their servant can remain opaque to safeguard the
interests of undemocratic and ungovernable social control technology
companies.
We submit that in a case of breach of trust Central Government is
making aadhaar mandatory by making it structurally irreversible
outwitting Hon’ble Court’s directions although the very first promise
which legally questionable UIDAI made in its UID/Aadhaar Enrolment
Form is/was that it is “free and voluntary”. The fact is that it is
neither free nor voluntary. It is not free because the foreign
companies involved are admittedly charging Rs 2.75 per enrolment. So
far Hon’ble Court has only repeated UIDAI’s own promise of Aadhaar
being “voluntary.”
making aadhaar mandatory by making it structurally irreversible
outwitting Hon’ble Court’s directions although the very first promise
which legally questionable UIDAI made in its UID/Aadhaar Enrolment
Form is/was that it is “free and voluntary”. The fact is that it is
neither free nor voluntary. It is not free because the foreign
companies involved are admittedly charging Rs 2.75 per enrolment. So
far Hon’ble Court has only repeated UIDAI’s own promise of Aadhaar
being “voluntary.”
We submit that although Constitution Benches have started sitting
since 15th January, 2016 after your intervention, birth of
Constitution Bench for Right to Privacy and Aadhaar case continues to
experience labour pains. Hon’ble Court’s website as of January 18,
2016 states that Aadhaar case is a “Five Judges Matter” but among the
10 Constitution Bench cases listed for hearing, it finds no mention
despite the fact that a five judge bench headed by Chief Justice of
India wrote, “Since there is some urgency in the matter, we request
the learned Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench for final
hearing of these matters at the earliest”. Unless these words are
accorded due respect and attention, the meaning of these words of
Hon’ble Court will suffer grave irreparable erosion.
since 15th January, 2016 after your intervention, birth of
Constitution Bench for Right to Privacy and Aadhaar case continues to
experience labour pains. Hon’ble Court’s website as of January 18,
2016 states that Aadhaar case is a “Five Judges Matter” but among the
10 Constitution Bench cases listed for hearing, it finds no mention
despite the fact that a five judge bench headed by Chief Justice of
India wrote, “Since there is some urgency in the matter, we request
the learned Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench for final
hearing of these matters at the earliest”. Unless these words are
accorded due respect and attention, the meaning of these words of
Hon’ble Court will suffer grave irreparable erosion.
In view of the “urgency” admitted and recorded by Hon’ble Court Bench
of five judge headed by Chief Justice of India to the Right to Privacy
and Aadhaar case, it appears inappropriate that even as the Hon’ble
Court is to determine the legal status of Aadhaar, Indian residents
are being coerced to accept Biometric Aadhaar Number as a fait
accompli, as if Hon’ble Court too will have to act like a rubber stamp
despite its legality having been questioned by Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court and Parliamentary Committee on Finance that trashed
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010.
of five judge headed by Chief Justice of India to the Right to Privacy
and Aadhaar case, it appears inappropriate that even as the Hon’ble
Court is to determine the legal status of Aadhaar, Indian residents
are being coerced to accept Biometric Aadhaar Number as a fait
accompli, as if Hon’ble Court too will have to act like a rubber stamp
despite its legality having been questioned by Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court and Parliamentary Committee on Finance that trashed
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Swarna Bharat Party
Today at 2:57 AM
Dear Friend
Swarna Bharat Party (SBP), India’s only liberal party, congratulates everyone on the auspicious occasion of the Republic Day, when India’s liberal constitution came into effect in 1950.
Today we must all pledge ourselves to the key objective of liberty that is embedded in the Preamble of India’s constitution. It is the reason we wanted freedom from British rule – so we could live our lives as a free people. But unfortunately, the idea of liberty has long since been destroyed by successive governments in India. Today, India is one of the most unfree nations in the world on almost all comparative benchmarks.
SBP is committed to your liberty and prosperity. SBP believes that India’s colonial governance arrangements, weakened further by socialist policies, have dramatically exacerbated corruption and inefficiency in government. We no longer have basic things like security, property rights and justice.
SBP is committed to the total reform of India’s governance system, as detailed in its manifesto. No other party has any idea of the reforms India needs in order to become – once again – the greatest nation on earth.
SBP was registered by the Election Commission as a political party in mid-2014. We are launching our new website today. Please visithttp://swarnabharat.in.
We invite you to join the party. Please visit the website and register either as a member or volunteer. You can become a lifetime member on payment of a nominal fee of Rs.100. Please also donate liberally to the cause of liberty and good governance in India.
SBP is your party, your platform to fight for your freedom and to transform India’s governance.
[This message has been published here: http://swarnabharat.in/blog/read/swarna-bharat-party-launches-new-website-on-republic-day ]
Please pass on this message widely to your friends.
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
 |
Sanjeev Sabhlok
about.me/sabhlok
| |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
