BS Reporter | New Delhi September 24, 2013 Last Updated at 00:58 IST
Ruling may hit direct benefits transfer scheme
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled Aadhaar numbers were not mandatory for availing of government benefits and services like gas connections, vehicle registration, scholarships, marriage registration, salaries and provident fund. The interim order was passed in a public interest petition moved by retired Karnataka high court judge K S Puttaswamy, who alleged the unique identity (UID), or Aadhaar, scheme didn’t have Parliamentary sanction and was rolled out only by the executive, without discussion in Parliament.
The ruling could deal a blow to the government’s ambitious Direct Benefits Transfer (DBT) scheme, through which it transfers welfare payments directly to the Aadhaar-linked bank accounts of beneficiaries. The ruling also comes days after news reports that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Chairman Nandan Nilekani was likely to contest elections from South Karnataka on a Congress ticket.
Neither Nilekani nor UIDAI Director-General Vijay S Madan was available for comment.
In Monday’s order, a Bench headed by B S Chauhan said the Aadhaar scheme had several shortcomings; it shouldn’t be made compulsory for essential services. Moreover, UID numbers shouldn’t be issued to illegal immigrants like those from Bangladesh, the order read.
Nikhil Dey, social activist and co-convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, said the order was “much needed”. He said the scheme was completely voluntary, but there was nothing voluntary about it. The government was forcing people to enrol for it to avail of services like cooking gas subsidy, he said. “The DBT project should only have been rolled out after the UID legislation was passed in Parliament.”
He added, though Aadhaar was beneficial as it gave an identity to people with no way to prove citizenship, the Supreme Court had said Aadhaar couldn’t be given to illegal migrants, leaving in doubt the fate of those who had already secured Aadhaar numbers without any identity or address proof.
So far, UIDAI has issued UID numbers to 429.6 million people. The prime minister had introduced the National Identity Authority of India Bill in 2010, but this was rejected by a standing committee of Parliament in 2011. Since then, the government has been pushing the scheme through executive action.
However, in support of the UID scheme, an official said the purpose of Aadhaar was to eliminate duplicates and fakes. “If this country wants leakages, let there be leakages,” he said, adding it was up to the police, not Aadhaar, to check illegal migration. “At least Aadhaar is trying to put them on the radar; thereafter, you can throw them out, as Aadhaar doesn’t give them legitimacy.” The root of the problem — how to check illegal migrations — wasn’t being addressed, he added.
Puttaswamy, the petitioner, argued the scheme, apart from the unconstitutionality of the executive acting on its own without legislative sanction, impinged on the right to privacy of individuals, as the confidentiality and security of biometric information collected by private agencies wasn’t ensured. He argued even non-citizens were likely to secure benefits like cash transfers, while illegal migrants were likely to be legitimised. This, Puttaswamy said, would jeopardise national security.
Whether or not Aadhaar should be made mandatory has been a point of debate for long. While the scheme is voluntary, linkages with agencies are making it mandatory in ways. Recently, the Maharashtra government insisted marriages could not be registered without UID numbers.
The registrar of the Bombay High Court is also reported to have insisted for UID numbers for disbursement of salary to staff.
Under the DBT scheme, various pensions and scholarship payments are linked to Aadhaar.
The ruling could deal a blow to the government’s ambitious Direct Benefits Transfer (DBT) scheme, through which it transfers welfare payments directly to the Aadhaar-linked bank accounts of beneficiaries. The ruling also comes days after news reports that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Chairman Nandan Nilekani was likely to contest elections from South Karnataka on a Congress ticket.
Neither Nilekani nor UIDAI Director-General Vijay S Madan was available for comment.
In Monday’s order, a Bench headed by B S Chauhan said the Aadhaar scheme had several shortcomings; it shouldn’t be made compulsory for essential services. Moreover, UID numbers shouldn’t be issued to illegal immigrants like those from Bangladesh, the order read.
Nikhil Dey, social activist and co-convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, said the order was “much needed”. He said the scheme was completely voluntary, but there was nothing voluntary about it. The government was forcing people to enrol for it to avail of services like cooking gas subsidy, he said. “The DBT project should only have been rolled out after the UID legislation was passed in Parliament.”
He added, though Aadhaar was beneficial as it gave an identity to people with no way to prove citizenship, the Supreme Court had said Aadhaar couldn’t be given to illegal migrants, leaving in doubt the fate of those who had already secured Aadhaar numbers without any identity or address proof.
So far, UIDAI has issued UID numbers to 429.6 million people. The prime minister had introduced the National Identity Authority of India Bill in 2010, but this was rejected by a standing committee of Parliament in 2011. Since then, the government has been pushing the scheme through executive action.
However, in support of the UID scheme, an official said the purpose of Aadhaar was to eliminate duplicates and fakes. “If this country wants leakages, let there be leakages,” he said, adding it was up to the police, not Aadhaar, to check illegal migration. “At least Aadhaar is trying to put them on the radar; thereafter, you can throw them out, as Aadhaar doesn’t give them legitimacy.” The root of the problem — how to check illegal migrations — wasn’t being addressed, he added.
Puttaswamy, the petitioner, argued the scheme, apart from the unconstitutionality of the executive acting on its own without legislative sanction, impinged on the right to privacy of individuals, as the confidentiality and security of biometric information collected by private agencies wasn’t ensured. He argued even non-citizens were likely to secure benefits like cash transfers, while illegal migrants were likely to be legitimised. This, Puttaswamy said, would jeopardise national security.
Whether or not Aadhaar should be made mandatory has been a point of debate for long. While the scheme is voluntary, linkages with agencies are making it mandatory in ways. Recently, the Maharashtra government insisted marriages could not be registered without UID numbers.
The registrar of the Bombay High Court is also reported to have insisted for UID numbers for disbursement of salary to staff.
Under the DBT scheme, various pensions and scholarship payments are linked to Aadhaar.
