Aadhaar verdict updates: Supreme Court ruling destroys legitimacy of the Act's stated purposes, say lawyers

Auto Refresh Feeds
Aadhaar verdict updates: Supreme Court ruling destroys legitimacy of the Act's stated purposes, say lawyers
  • 13:20 (IST)

    Legitimacy of the Aadhaar Act has been undermined: Law experts

    The legitimacy of the Aadhaar Act has been undermined. This project has little or no legitimacy left. Massive legislative and structural changes will be required. I will be writing on bits of the judgement in the coming weeks.

  • 13:18 (IST)

    Individuals too can file complaint on theft of Aadhaar data: What SC did not like about original Aadhaar Act

    • Private entities cannot avail your Aadhaar data - The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act. It said that private companies, individuals cannot insist on Aadhaar data to provide consimer services. 
    • Aadhaar data can't be shared with security agencies - The Supreme Court read down Section 33 (2) which means that your Aadhaar data cannot be shared with security agencies in the name of upholding national security. 
    • Individuals too can complain about theft of Aadhaar data - Earlier, according to Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act, only Government of India could complain about the theft of Aadhaar data. But Supreme Court ruled that private individuals too can complain about it. 

  • 13:16 (IST)

    Legitimacy of its stated purposes is destroyed: Aapar Gupta

    "Today's judgment as read out in court signals massive changes in the Aadhaar project and the Act. The legitimacy of its stated purposes is destroyed. Even the majority signals significant concern by reading down portions."

  • 13:00 (IST)

    Congress party welcomes Aadhar verdict, calls it slap on face of Modi govt 

    The Congress Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court decision to strike down Section 57 of the Aadhaar act, which allowed private entities to access Aadhaar data, and termed it a "slap on the face of BJP". 

     
    "We welcome the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act. Private entities are no longer allowed to use Aadhaar for verification purposes," the Congress said on Twitter minutes after the verdict. 
    Several Congress leaders also spoke on the judgement. 

  • 12:53 (IST)

    Reading down of Section 57 to impact RBI's KYC guidelines 

    The majority verdict has read down Section 57, clarifying that private parties can no longer mandate Aadhaar , but statutory authorities can when there is a backing of a law. More clarity is required on what would be a valid law as per this section. The striking down of the DOT order on Aadhaar-sim linking and of the PMLA rules on Aadhaar-bank account linking indicate that every law will not be justified under this head. The striking down of Aadhaar-bank account linking further, will also impact the RBI new norms on KYC which had mandated Aadhaar subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Aadhaar case.

  • 12:52 (IST)

    Aadhaar does not violate privacy: Justice Bhushan

    Justice Bhushan said that Aadhaar passed the three fold test in 9 judge bench decision. It does not violate an individuals privacy. The judge further noted that problems in implementation and shortcomings do not make Section 7 unconstitutional. He said that the no material evidence has come to light to suggest that exclusion has increased post Aadhaar.

  • 12:42 (IST)

    Here are a few key observations made by the majority view of the Supreme Court

    Justice Sikri: “Lot of people who will benefit due to inclusion cannot be denied due to exclusion of few; Can’t throw baby out with bathwater”

    Justice Sikri: "It is better to be unique than to be best”.

    Justice Sikri: "Fundamental difference from UID and other IDs. Uniqueness of UID is the difference as claimed by Government of India."

    Justice Sikri: "Empowers marginalised section of societies as it gives identity to such persons."

  • 12:36 (IST)

    Supreme Court upholds Aadhaar Act and scheme by 4:1 majority 

    In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Aadhaar Act and scheme by a 4:1 majority. The judgment was pronounced by a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Justice Chandrachud's views dissented from the majority.

    Justice Sikri wrote a judgment on behalf of himself, CJI Misra and Justice Khanwilkar.

  • 12:32 (IST)

    Aadhaar Verdict: What is allowed and what isn't

    • Private firms cannot insist for Aadhaar information
    • Cellphone companies cannot ask for Aadhaar details
    • Aadhaar no more mandatory for opening bank accounts
    • Schools cannot seek child's Aadhaar details, including their admission​
    • Aadhaar, however, is mandatory to be linked with PAN card and for filing of income tax returns

  • 12:28 (IST)

    Supreme Court: Aadhaar bill as Money Bill is open to judicial review

    "Decision of Speaker to certify Aadhaar bill as Money Bill is open to judicial review. Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as money bill." 

    "Section 139AA does not infringe right to privacy," says Supreme Court. Pronouncement of judgment stands over. Bench rises.

  • 12:25 (IST)

    What does reading down of Section 57 mean?

    Section 57 of Aadhaar Act permitted State or any body corporate or any person to use Aadhaar to establish identity for any purpose. This has been read down By Supreme Court to strike down those provisions which permitted even private entities to use Aadhaar. 

    The Supreme Court seems to have struck down these provisions as they were not necessary and proportionate to the original purpose of Aadhaar (which as stated in the  Aadhaar Act is distribution of welfare subsidies). This means that now no private entity can ask for Aadhaar for the purpose of providing any service.

     Even for the state authorities, use of Aadhaar will be limited to only those purposes which are backed by a law. And so, if there is no law, Aadhaar can not be made mandatory and if there is a law, it can be challenged as well.

  • 12:22 (IST)

    Dissenting view of Justice Chandrachud: 

    "Allowing private players to use Aadhaar will lead to profiling which could be used in ascertaining political views etc of citizens." 

    "Mandating Aadhaar for benefits and services under Section 7 would lead to a situation in which citizens will not be able to live without Aadhaar. Hence, Section 7 arbitrary and unconstitutional."

  • 12:13 (IST)

    Justice Chandrachud says:

    "Linking of Aadhaar with PAN is not valid because aadhaar act in itself is unconstitutional"

  • 12:05 (IST)

    "Section 7 of the Act suffers from over breadth because it uses services and benefits enables the government to regulate every facet of a person's life"

    Justice Chandrachud says: Section 7 of the Act suffers from over breadth because it uses services and benefits enables the government to regulate every facet of a person's life. This leads to function creep. Legitimate aim of state cab be fulfilled by using less intrusive methods.

  • 11:59 (IST)

    Dissenting view: Aadhaar Act is unconstitutional if it's passed as a Money Bill

    Justice Chandrachud although has held the Aadhaar Act as unconstitutional on the basis of money bill, has also gone into separate provisions and the project. However he held that Aadhaar cannot have been a money bill. Not even Section 7. Passing a Bill which is not a money bill as a money bill a subterfuge and a fraud on the constitution. 

    This is a dissent from Justice Sikri's view.

    Justice Chandrachud overrules earlier judgment on money bill whether or not speaker decision is subject to judicial review. Elaborate discussion of rule of law and judicial review. Justice Sikri agrees on this point.

  • 11:50 (IST)

    Case is about rule of law and governance: Justice Chandrachud

    "The case is about the rule of law and governance. All encompassing nature of Aadhaar project, magnitude, make it imperative to carefully scrutinise the project. Issue of whether money bill can be judicially reviewed."

  • 11:48 (IST)

    Aadhaar can't be regarded as money bill: Chandrachud says in dissenting opinion

    "By declaring an ordinary bill to be a money bill, it is berefting the Rajya Sabha of its power. Aadhaar act cannot be regarded as money bill. Aadhaar act does not contain provisions 'only' limited to clauses a-g."

  • 11:47 (IST)

    At the heart of Aadhaar project lies power: Justice Chandrachud

    "Our decision must understand the dilemma between technology and power. And Mark areas where sanctity of individual is inviolable. Society is witnessing a shift into knowledge economy. At the heart of the project lies power."

  • 11:41 (IST)

    Decision to treat a bill as a money bill is amenable to judicial review, Justice Chandrachud concurs with Justice Sikri on that aspect

  • 11:40 (IST)

     Supreme Court upholds Section 139AA mandating linkage with PAN

  • 11:39 (IST)

    You don't need Aadhaar for: 

    Enrolment for school admission
    Opening of bank accounts
    for new mobile connections
    Not mandatory for CBSE, NEET, UGC

  • 11:35 (IST)

    Aadhaar Act can be passed as Money Bill, hold Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court turns down challenge on the ground that it could not have been classified as a Money bill.

  • 11:34 (IST)

    Aadhaar not mandatory for opening bank accounts

    Aadhaar cannot be mandated for opening of bank accounts, Supreme Court. Aadhaar cannot be mandatory for mobile connections; DoT notification to that effect unconstitutional.

  • 11:25 (IST)

    CBSE NET cannot make Aadhaar mandatory

    Sikri said: "Enrolment of children only with parental consent. They should be given an option to exit on attaining majority."

  • 11:21 (IST)

    Supreme Court has applied the fair and reasonable standards

    Justice Sikri says we've applied the fair and reasonable standards. "Human dignity is based on socio-economic rights. In the present case, we've enlarged the scope of human dignity. We've applied the principle of compelling state interest."

  • 11:19 (IST)

    Aadhaar act violates right to privacy?

    Whether Aadhaar act violates right to privacy. Justice Sikri says they have examined only Section 7 and 8 for this purpose.

  • 11:18 (IST)

    Issue 2 conclusion by Justice Sikri:

    Purpose of the Act is legitimate/ Rational connection to purpose is satisfied/ Balancing test satisfied by the Act insofar as Aadhaar only collects minimal data.

  • 11:17 (IST)

    National security exception under Section 33 is struck down

    "National security exception under Section 33 is struck down. Lays down that Joint secretary mechanism is arbitrary and requires  a judicial warrant," Sikri says

  • 11:14 (IST)

    Section 57 struck down. Private companies cannot insist on Aadhaar

  • 11:13 (IST)

    "We follow the "larger public interest" as against the "compelling public state interest" test

    Sikri said, "We follow the "larger public interest" as against the "compelling public state interest" test. Respect grounded in human dignity is exposited in the judgment.   Also discussed is dignity not only in reference to individual but also dignity within the community. Question on whether strict scrutiny or just fair and reasonable standard to be adopted in testing constitutionality of laws. Says Puttaswamy leaves that open. And that this judgment had adopted the latter standard."

  • 11:10 (IST)

    Judgement deal with proportionality doctrine, compelling state interest and strict scrutiny test: Sikri

    Reading out the judgment, Justice Sikri said the ruling deals with proportionality doctrine, compelling state interest and strict scrutiny test

  • 11:07 (IST)

    Heavy reliance has been placed on Privacy judgment of 2017: Sikri

    Justice Sikri says that heavy reliance has been placed on Privacy judgment of 2017. "The main plank of challenge to Aadhaar project and Aadhaar Act is that it infringes Right to Privacy," Sikri stated. 

  • 11:02 (IST)

    There is no possibility of obtaining duplicate Aadhaar card: Sikri

  • 11:01 (IST)

    UID proof empowers marginalised: Sikri

    "The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society."

  • 11:00 (IST)

    It is better to be unique than the best: Justice Sikri

    Justice AK Sikri reads out the majority judgment in the case. Justice Sikri started his Aadhaar judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best."  He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years.

  • 10:54 (IST)

    Sikri extolling the virtues of "uniqueness"

    "How the word Aadhaar has completely dislodged the hindi dictionary meaning for Aadhaar by the Id provided by UIDAI," says Sikri.

  • 10:53 (IST)

    Justice AK Sikri has authored judgment on behalf of himself and CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar

  • 10:52 (IST)

    Supreme Court Bench assembles, Justice AK Sikri pronouncing his judgment now

  • 10:49 (IST)

    No real success stories of Aadhaar yet, as claimed by govt

    As we await the Aadhaar judgment, it may be useful to remember that there have been no real success stories of Aadhaar, other than unsubstantiated claims of savings by government and administrative ease. The actual beneficiaries have hardly seen any benefit of Aadhaar coming their way, though they may have suffered from many a losses.

  • 10:45 (IST)

    How long will the SC judgment on Aadhaar be?

    Aadhaar verdict has created a huge social buzz and apart from lawyers and activists sharing their insights, there are a few who are having some fun with the verdict. 

  • 10:39 (IST)

    Many crucial issues which need to be addressed via the verdict today

    Among the several crucial issues to be answered via Aadhaar, the most critical are on Aadhaar-based exclusion, violation of the right to privacy and dignity, the validity of Section 7 (mandating Aadhaar for Section 7 benefits) and 57 (allowing the mandatory use of Aadhaar by anyone), and the lawfulness of the passing of Aadhaar Act.

  • 10:38 (IST)

    List of issues with Aadhaar

    Apart from digital identity, there are several issues with validating Aadhaar, lawyers and civil society acitivists have argued. 

  • 10:15 (IST)

    Impact of the verdict on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018

    The Aadhaar verdict, at the least, have a major impact on the amendments made to the Aadhaar Act via the Bill, in relation to privacy and data protection practices used for Aadhaar itself. Further, the Court’s rulings with respect to data protection in relation to Aadhaar will also help determine what practices are constitutional under the Bill within the terms of the judgment. For instance, a ruling on the large-scale collection of biometric data via Aadhaar can affect provisions under the Bill for processing of sensitive personal data and for the non-consent based processing of data by the State.

  • 09:54 (IST)

    RECAP: Brainchild of UPA, Aadhaar Bill was passed by BJP govt

    The brainchild of the UPA government, the Aadhaar Bill was passed by the BJP government with the mode of the passage of the Bill itself raking up controversy and becoming subject matter of litigation before the Supreme Court.

    From making Aadhaar mandatory for dispensing welfare schemes’ benefit to an attempt to bring transparency in the taxation of individuals, almost all the steps towards making Aadhaar the only gateway for complete financial and social inclusion, were challenged before the  Supreme Court.

  • 09:48 (IST)

    3 separate opinions by Justices Sikri, Chandrachud and Bhushan

    Three separate opinions in today's Aadhaar verdict will be by Justice AK Sikri, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan. CJI Dipak Misra will not give a separate judgment

  • 09:46 (IST)

    Is Addhaar trying to transform India into a surveillance state?

    Over the course of more than 6 years, a vast range of arguments have been made against Aadhaar in court. One of them was whether or not the Aadhaar programme helped create the infrastructure that would transform India into a surveillance state. Aadhaar would create, as one lawyer put it, “a system of centralised data storage, and tracking of citizens’ transactions over the course of a lifetime”.

    Multiple advocates for the petitioners argued in this vein, and that by creating a surveillance state, the biometric authentication programme violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

  • 09:25 (IST)

    Aadhaar Privacy issues extend beyond security of biometric data

    One of the most common statement from UIDAI after every Aadhaar data leak is that the biometric data hasn't been compromised.

    Aadhaar represents the most massive honeypot of sensitive biometrics ever compiled on the planet. However, hacking the database is not really required for Aadhaar to be a privacy concern. It is unlikely that prominent public figures like RS Sharma or Amitabh Bachchan will “suffer” from identity thefts. It is the ordinary Indian who is spammed by text and email when their privacy is compromised.

    Firstpost argued why the lax attitude, which Indians have in general towards privacy, could make it easier for malicious actors to steal identity. "Phone numbers can be cloned by a technique known as SIM hijacking. A phisher (as these scamsters are usually called) induce a state of panic by claiming that essential services will be blocked if they are not given your SIM card details, for example. These methods are not always successful, and they don’t always have to be. Going through a list of harvested phone numbers (often gleaned from WhatsApp groups) also takes persistence and time."

  • 09:21 (IST)

    Nikhil Pahwa talks about what's wrong with Aadhaar

    Ankit Vengurlekar and Nikhil Pahwa, Digital Rights activist and founder of MediaNama, discuss the fundamental issues with Aadhaar, what needs to be fixed immediately and the importance of activism.

  • 09:20 (IST)

    Centre, UIDAI, Maharashtra and Gujarat govts and RBI in favour of 2016 Aadhaar Act

    The Centre, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the governments of Maharashtra and Gujarat and the RBI had argued in favour of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016 and were represented by the Attorney General, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Jayant Bhushan and lawyer Zoheb Hossain.

    During the arguments, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

  • 09:16 (IST)

    Aadhaar violates earlier verdict which held that Right to privacy is a fundamental right

    A key argument against the Aadhaar scheme was that it was violative of the nine-judge bench verdict that had held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Aadhaar verdict today LATEST updates: The Supreme Court verdict on the Aadhaar Act, undermines the legitimacy of the Act, law experts have said.  "This project has little or no legitimacy left. Massive legislative and structural changes will be required. I will be writing on bits of the judgement in the coming weeks."

"Today's judgement as read out in court signals massive changes in the Aadhaar project and the Act. The legitimacy of its stated purposes is destroyed. Even the majority signals significant concern by reading down portions."

The Supreme Court today upheld the validity of the Aadhaar Act and scheme by a 4:1 majority. It said that the government cannot compel individuals to use Aadhaar as the sole identification tool. The court also ruled that private entities and corporates cannot hoard Aadhaar data.

The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Justice Chandrachud dissented from the majority.

Supreme Court has noted that Aadhaar empowers the marginalised society. Justice Chandrachud although has held the Aadhaar Act as unconstitutional on the basis of money bill, has also gone into separate provisions and the project. However he held that Aadhaar cannot have been a money bill. Not even Section 7. Passing a Bill which is not a money bill as a money bill a subterfuge and a fraud on the constitution.

This is a dissent from Justice Sikri's view.

Aadhaar cannot be mandated for opening of bank accounts, says Supreme Court. Aadhaar cannot be mandatory for mobile connections; DoT notification to that effect unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that UGC, which has made it mandatory cannot happen. "Enrollment of children, consent of parents is essential. Aadhaar for school education would not be necessary coz it is neither welfare or subsidy."

Representational image. AFP

Representational image. AFP

Supreme Court introduces a significant voluntary component to Aadhaar judgement. Justice AK Sikri has said struck down Section 47, Section 33, Section 57, Section 33(1) has to be read down that individual afforded hearing. 33(2)- Information shared for national security struck down. Section 57 that includes body corporates is unconstitutional. Sikri said: "Enrolment of children only with parental consent. They should be given an option to exit on attaining majority."

Justice AK Sikri said, "We follow the "larger public interest" as against the "compelling public state interest" test. Respect grounded in human dignity is exposited in the judgment. Also discussed is dignity not only in reference to individual but also dignity within the community. Question on whether strict scrutiny or just fair and reasonable standard to be adopted in testing constitutionality of laws. Says Puttaswamy leaves that open. And that this judgment had adopted the latter standard."

Justice Sikri reads out the majority judgment in the case. "The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society."

Justice Sikri started his Aadhaar judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best." He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years.

He said it is better to be unique than the best. "Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years," he said.

5-judge Supreme Court Bench assembles in the top court with Justice AK Sikri pronouncing his judgment now.

The Aadhaar verdict, at the least, have a major impact on the amendments made to the Aadhaar Act via the Bill, in relation to privacy and data protection practices used for Aadhaar itself. Further, the court’s rulings with respect to data protection in relation to Aadhaar will also help determine what practices are constitutional under the Bill within the terms of the judgment.

The five-judge Constitutional bench of Supreme Court will pronounce the verdict at 10.30 am. During the last hearing, lawyers appearing for the petitioners told the Supreme Court that over the time as Aadhaar authenticating becomes ubiquitous, tracking and profiling will become more comprehensive.

The arguments against Aadhaar began with the assertion that data collection was happening in the absence of a law, that personnel were not qualified to collect and handle sensitive data and that the biometric process itself was unreliable. Fingerprints can be cloned and iris scanners bypassed.

The Supreme Court will pronounce its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law. While the first petition challenging Aadhaar was filed in 2012, the process for this case was kicked off by a October 2015 judgment by the Supreme Court which allowed the use of Aadhaar in a number of government schemes.

The judgment specifically maintained that the “purely voluntary nature” of Aadhaar would continue till the court decided one way or another on the validity of the system through a constitution bench.

In 2012, Justice Puttaswamy had filed a petition in the Supreme Court saying that the government cannot indirectly implement Aadhaar without the legislative passage of the National ID Bill.

Aadhaar is one of the most crucial verdicts expected this year. This week being Dipak Misra's last week as the Chief Justice of India, the verdict holds historical importance as well. One of the lawyers appearing for the petitioners, Aapar Gupta tweeted and said, "Irrespective of the verdict in tomorrow's Aadhaar judgement we will continue to negotiate the power imbalances of technology. The constitution and the courts will be key players in revitalising doctrine for the development of digital rights in India."

The Aadhaar litigation in Supreme Court has now spanned over 6 years. At least, 26 Judges have heard the matter at various points of time. The verdict is expected to be read out at around 10.30 am on Wednesday.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on 10 May reserved the verdict on the matter after a marathon hearing that went on for 38 days, spanning four-and-half months.

As many as 31 petitions, including one by former high court judge KS Puttaswamy, have been filed in the matter.

When the judgment was reserved by the court, Attorney General KK Venugopal had told the bench, which also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that this matter had become the "second longest" one in terms of days of hearing after the historic Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.

The Kesavananda Bharati case, which was heard by a 13-judge bench, by a majority of 7:6 had propounded the doctrine of the 'Basic Structure and of the Constitution'. It had held that the amendments which may affect this structure were subject to judicial review.

A battery of senior lawyers, including Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramaniam, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Arvind Datar, KV Vishwanath, Anand Grover, Sajan Poovayya and a few others, had argued on behalf of the petitioners opposing the Aadhaar Scheme on various grounds.

Besides the former high court judge, the top lawyers argued for petitioners, who included Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and CPI leader Binoy Visman.

A key argument against the Aadhaar scheme was that it was violative of the nine-judge bench verdict that had held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The Centre, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the governments of Maharashtra and Gujarat and the RBI had argued in favour of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016 and were represented by the Attorney General, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Jayant Bhushan and lawyer Zoheb Hossain.

During the arguments, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

The court had also not agreed prima facie with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targetted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India.

The counsel for one of the petitioners had termed Aadhaar as "an electronic leash" and said that the government could completely destroy an individual by "switching off" the 12-digit unique identifier number.

On the other hand, the Centre had said that the law was valid and allowed minimal invasion to ensure the right to life of millions of Indians by ensuring seamless delivery of subsidies, benefits and services to the poorest of poor.


Updated Date: Sep 26, 2018 15:18 PM

Also See