IN 2008, WHEN Mahua Moitra left her job in London as vice president of JP Morgan, the only thing on her mind was to serve her country. She chose electoral politics as her path. The Trinamool Congress legislator, who had declared assets worth around Rs 2.5 crore, is now serving Karimpur, one of the poorest constituencies in West Bengal.

Last month, a video of Moitra fighting with a female constable at Silchar airport in Assam went viral on social media. She was there as part of an eight-member TMC delegation to protest the misuse of the national register of citizens. When reminded about that episode, Moitra said, “They were physically restraining me without an arrest warrant.” She is ready to take up a fight for a cause, and now her biggest fight is for the protection of privacy rights.

On October 31, 2017, Moitra filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the directive issued by banks that made linking Aadhaar with bank accounts mandatory. “Banks have no business doing that,” said Moitra. Her petition was clubbed with the original petition filed five years ago by retired justice K.S. Puttaswamy against making Aadhaar mandatory for availing government services.

Eventually, the Supreme Court’s verdict on September 26 made linking Aadhaar with bank accounts a thing of the past, though the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar project was upheld by the court. Moitra pointed out that since linking bank accounts was mandated under prevention of money laundering rules, it assumed that every citizen is a money launderer. “It was unconstitutional,” she said. “This is a victory for common people who have been hounded by banks to link their accounts with Aadhaar.” The court also struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act that allowed private entities to use Aadhaar for verification purposes.

In May, Moitra filed another petition in the Supreme Court against the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry’s attempt to create a Social Media Communication Hub (SMCH). The controversial platform was intended to create “conversational logs... to help facilitate creating a 360 degree view of the people who are creating buzz across various topic.”

On April 24, the I&B ministry had placed a request for proposal (RFP) to select a bidder for providing software solutions for SMCH. Under the RFP, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL)—a public sector enterprise under the I&B ministry—invited private agencies to run and maintain the project.

The proposal further said that the technology should have the capability to listen for and collect data from social media platforms and emails.

It was proposed that district coordinators would scrutinise online interactions nationwide. Also, an additional director general-rank officer was proposed to oversee each region.

“It is horrendous, dictatorial and totally unacceptable. How could we, living in a free democracy, be under such blanket snooping?” asked Moitra. On August 3, when the Supreme Court took up the petition, the government had to withdraw the proposal to end any further scrutiny from the court. While withdrawing the proposal, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said that the government would retable it with corrections.

“It was not [just] a withdrawal, but a big defeat for them,” said Moitra.

Moitra pointed out that it was dubious that the project came from the I&B ministry, and not the home ministry—which conducts a limited amount of surveillance for security purposes. “But, here it will be a blanket and naked breach of privacy,” she said. “Can you imagine that a private body would get all the data and you will be exposed before them?”

Moitra rubbishes the argument that the government might need to keep a tab on some people to maintain law and order or to contain insurgency. “This is a specious argument that it is going to help the government maintain law and order in disturbed zones. First of all, [the SCMH] RFP does not mention insurgency,” she said.

Another controversial point in the RFP is that the government wants to know the impact of social welfare schemes on people and “government’s competitors”. “Who are their competitors?” asked Moitra. “Are they trying to term their political opponents as competitors?”

When asked if this was an attempt by the ruling BJP to influence the mood of the nation in the 2019 general elections, Moitra said, “I have no idea, because, being a citizen, I did not explore that.”

What enraged her further was that even while the issue was under the consideration of the Supreme Court, BECIL issued successive tenders. Apparently, the government had tried to launch a social media wing for online surveillance via a UIDAI RFP floated on July 18. Subsequently, Moitra moved against this move, too, in the Supreme Court. Commenting on the issue, the court said, “You [government] are trying to do indirectly what we told you cannot do directly.” On September 11, the Centre told the court that it is ready to accommodate Moitra’s suggestions in the proposal.

Justice served

Salient features of the Aadhaar verdict:

* Constitutional validity of Aadhaar upheld

* Banks cannot demand linking of accounts with Aadhaar

* Private entities or telecom companies cannot seek Aadhaar details

* Students do not need Aadhaar for writing exams or for admission

* National security exception under Aadhaar Act was removed, limiting the government's access to Aadhaar data

* Aadhaar is mandatory for income tax returns filing and allotment of PAN card

* Aadhaar is required for receiving government subsidies