It has been made mandatory even for accessing some government welfare schemes.
https://video.scroll.in/842067/watch-the-myth-buster-all-the-things-that-you-think-aadhaar-is-but-is-not
Friday, June 30, 2017
11566 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 29th June 2017
|
|
Times of India
NEW DELHI: The government has, in a fresh notification, made it mandatory to link existing Aadhaar numbers with PAN for taxpayers with effect from ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Economic Times
Despite rolling out massive campaigns years ago and, reaching out to the impregnable corners of the country, urging citizens to get an Aadhaar card, ...
|
|
||||
|
|
MediaNama.com
This is Part 4 of a series of analysis by Anand Venkatanarayanan related to claims made about Aadhaar. Read Part 1 and Part 2, which were written in ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The Indian Express
The university had issued a notice on its website, which read, “Aadhaar number shall be mandatory for the admission process for all Indian nationals.”.
|
|
||||
|
|
Scroll.in
Watch the myth-buster: All the things that you think Aadhaar is, but is not. It has been made mandatory even for accessing some government welfare ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Kashmir Observer
Srinagar—The Deputy Commissioner Srinagar Dr. Farooq Ahmad today reviewed the Aadhaar enrolment in Srinagar district today. The meeting was ...
|
|
||||
|
|
MediaNama.com
The Supreme Court of India has refused to provide any further clarification regarding notifications issued by the Government of India making Aadhaar ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Deccan Herald
Owing to technical glitch in seeding Aadhaar with bank accounts, subsidy amount of Rs 8 crore could not be credited to the accounts of milk producers ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The Hans India
Hyderabad: The Road Transport Authority will soon make Aadhaar card mandatory for all transactions like obtaining driving licence, registration of a ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Economic Times
A senior government official said that record Aadhaar seeding done in MGNREGS accounts in the last fiscal led to scrapping of nearly one crore job ...
|
|||||
Thursday, June 29, 2017
11565 - Aadhar Articles dated 28th June 2017
|
|
Economic Times
The applicability of Aadhaar is fast becoming mandatory across the board. There are many who are fearful about the possibility of misuse of ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Times of India
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stop the Centre from making Aadhaar a must for receiving benefits under various social ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The Hindu
The Union government has made it mandatory to link the Aadhaar number with the permanent account number (PAN) of an individual with effect from ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The Indian Express
Voluntary enrolment of Aadhaar is currently going on in only two of the 11 districts of Meghalaya, official sources said on Tuesday. The enrolment in ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Zee Business
June 30, 2017 is the last day to file income tax returns for assessment year 2017-18. Apart from linking your Aadhaar number with your PAN, we bring ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Financial Express
Disbursements via the direct benefit transfer (DBT) channel were at Rs 6,587 crore in May 2017, only moderately higher than in the corresponding ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The Shillong Times
SHILLONG: The Meghalaya Peoples' Committee on Aadhaar (MPCA) lauded the West Khasi Hills Deputy Commissioner for stating that “enrolment of ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Daily News & Analysis
None would believe Mohammed Yusuf and Abdul Shakoor are rag pickers. They are among 94 Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar living near ...
|
|||||
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
11564 - Linking Aadhaar number to PAN for filing to income tax returns will be mandatory from July 1 - NDTV
The rules will come into force from July 1, 2017, the revenue department said while amending Rule 114 of the Income Tax Act, which deals in application for allotment of PAN.
All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: June 28, 2017 10:37 IST
NEW DELHI: The government has made it mandatory to link existing Aadhaar numbers with PAN of taxpayers with effect from July 1. Amending income tax rules and notifying the same, the government has made quoting of the 12-digit biometric Aadhaar or the enrollment ID a must at the time of application of Permanent Account Number (PAN).
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley through an amendment to tax proposals in the Finance Bill for 2017-18 had made Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns and provided for linking of PAN with Aadhaar to check tax evasion through use of multiple PAN cards.
The revenue department said "every person who has been allotted PAN as on July 1, 2017, and who in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 139AA is required to intimate his Aadhaar number, shall intimate his Aadhaar number to the principal director general of income tax (systems) or DGIT (systems)".
Besides, it entrusted principal DGIT (systems) or DGIT (systems) with specifying the formats and standards along with procedure for verification of documents filed with PAN application or intimation of Aadhaar number.
The rules will come into force from July 1, 2017, the revenue department said while amending Rule 114 of the Income Tax Act, which deals in application for allotment of PAN.
As many as 2.07 crore taxpayers have already linked their Aadhaar with PAN.
There are over 25 crore PAN card holders in the country while Aadhaar has been issued to 111 crore people.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of an I-T Act provision making Aadhaar mandatory for allotment of PAN cards and Income Tax Returns filing, but had put a partial stay on its implementation till a Constitution bench addressed the issue of right to privacy.
Pursuant to this, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had said that the linking of Aadhaar and PAN will be a "must" for filing of income tax returns (ITR) and obtaining PAN from July 1.
While Aadhaar is a biometric authentication issued by the UIDAI, PAN is a 10-digit alphanumeric number alloted by the Income Tax department to individuals and entities.
11563 - Aadhaar case: Supreme Court refuses interim order against govt’s notification - Live Mint
Supreme Court refuses to pass any interim order against the government’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes
The bench referred to the 9 June judgment passed by the apex court in which it had upheld the validity of an Income Tax Act provision making Aadhaar mandatory for allotment of PAN cards and filing of tax returns. Photo: Mint
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass any interim order against the Centre’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes.
A vacation bench of justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha said that no interim order can be passed at this stage on the “mere apprehension” of petitioners that government may deprive people from availing benefits of various social welfare schemes due to lack of Aadhaar.
The bench referred to the 9 June judgment passed by the apex court in which it had upheld the validity of an Income Tax Act provision making Aadhaar mandatory for allotment of PAN cards and filing of tax returns, but had put a partial stay on its implementation till a Constitution bench addressed the issue of right to privacy. The bench said, “In view of the observations made in the judgement in Para 90 of the case... decided on June 9, no further observation is required.”
During the hearing, additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Centre has extended the 30 June deadline to 30 September for those who do not have Aadhaar and are availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioners, told the court that the Centre should be directed not to deprive any person of the benefits of social welfare schemes which he/she is enjoying now due to lack of Aadhaar. “No interim order can be passed in mandamus on mere apprehensions. You have to wait for one week. If somebody is deprived (of the benefits) you can point out the same to this court,” the bench told Divan and posted the matter for further hearing on 7 July.
The apex court was hearing three separate petitions challenging government’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes.
11562 - NOW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN - Bangalore Mirror
By Shyam Prasad S, Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Jun 26, 2017, 03.00 AM IST
HC recognises and grants request to erase name from online case records
In the times of the all-pervasive Internet, the High Court has recognised the ‘Right to be forgotten’. Even after a case is disposed by the HC, the name, address and other details, including the order copy of that particular case, is available on the court’s website. Due to digitisation of court documents, an online search of a person’s name reveals all these details if he/she has ever been associated with a case.
In January this year, Justice Anand Byrareddy allowed a petition by the father of a woman, who was involved in a divorce case, to remove her name from the records so that it would not reflect in online searches. “This would be in line with the trend in the Western countries where they follow this as a matter of rule — the right to be forgotten — in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned. The petition is disposed of accordingly,” the court had ordered.
Following this order, there are other petitioners who are approaching the court with similar requests. On June 15, Justice AS Bopanna allowed a similar petition by another woman who wanted her name to be removed from online records. She had cited “certain embarrassment and hardship” she was facing due to her name being reflected in court records online.
However, it does not mean that the names of the petitioners who make such requests will be erased. If a certified copy of the particular order is applied for, “the name would certainly be reflected in the copy of the order,” the HC has specified in the first case. Advocates routinely apply for official copies of court orders which they require.
A NEW RIGHT
Two years ago, advocate GR Mohan filed a petition on behalf of a 35-year-old businessman who faced a similar situation. He had divorced his wife after a long legal battle that included criminal allegations against him. The issue was settled by way of a compromise and the allegations were withdrawn by his then wife. But when he tried to marry a second time, he found that the display of the case details on the HC’s website was hampering his prospects.
“In that case, the court had ruled that it was not possible to remove the name from the online records. The computer committee of the HC had reported that it was not possible. But times seem to have changed. The larger question of right to privacy is also at stake. Even when you are acquitted of charges, the stigma sticks as your name will be seen online in connection with the case. The recognition of right to be forgotten is a welcome development,” Mohan said.
11561 - Dear designers and implementers of UID... - Deccan herald
Nikhil Dey and Aruna Roy Jun 25 2017, 0:52 IST
We write this letter to you as a question, a comment, a complaint, and finally an appeal.
We do want to clarify at the outset that we have had many intellectual and theoretical problems with the UID (Unique Identification) related to surveillance, privacy and how it actually has the potential to turn the Right to Information (RTI) on its head. Nevertheless, we have since its inception carefully watched Aadhaar or the UID as per its primary stated objective (even in the legislation) to benefit the poor. You promised that there would be at least three big advantages that would accrue from the roll out of this “game-changing” platform.
First, we were told, that it would foster and ensure inclusion at all levels. It is now becoming clear, that Aadhaar is actually just an authentication mechanism using biometric technology threaded through a vast, centralised, data gathering platform. It has provided citizens with no unique benefit, except (potentially dangerously) being used as an ID/KYC card.
Since Aadhaar has been made absolutely mandatory for drawing benefits under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) in Rajasthan over the last year, we confine ourselves to use the detailed evidence that exists of the devastating consequences of its imposition in rations leading to mass anguish and distress.
In a recent meeting with officials from the Department of Food and IT officials in Rajasthan, certain statistics from the Rajasthan Government website were discussed and confirmed- Out of approximately 1 crore NFSA beneficiary families, nearly 30 lakh families i.e. approximately 30% of intended beneficiaries, were not drawing their monthly rations over the last 10 months. These were families with Aadhaar numbers, so you will agree that they could not be "bogus".
It also makes no sense for these families to willingly forego wheat at Rs 2 per kg when the market price is ten times that amount. The statistic of 30% masked the old and the physically challenged who could not reach the ration shop to place their fingerprints on the machine and those who migrated in search of work, for a season, or even a whole year. The most vulnerable, who should be our highest priority, are being excluded by design. Should the designers not have made sure this situation did not continue for the last 10 months and beyond? Other reasons offered to explain the exclusion are poor performance of the machine, the network, biometric mismatch and even the dealer's poor performance.
The government has not invested any effort to match the breakdown of numbers with reasons. Instead, it made inflated claims on equating denial with savings and thereby ending corruption. Would you not agree that to classify exclusion as a saving is unethical and cruel? And this continues despite an unequivocal Rajasthan High Court order of May 30 that Aadhaar can’t be the basis for denial of rations. But ignoring Supreme Court and high court orders is a nurtured pattern in the UID paradigm.
Second, we were told that Aadhaar would be an almost foolproof method to de-duplicate and therefore eliminate corruption. Duplication is not the biggest source of corruption in welfare. There are other citizen-based methods to de-duplicate. But, you never had an answer to the many other forms of corruption it leaves untouched. And we now know that in fact, it fosters some new forms of corruption! Out of the 70% of rations the dealer is distributing, he is making his cut in numerous ways.
He almost never provides a receipt. He authenticates for everything and gives only kerosene. He authenticates for several months and gives only for one month. He overcharges, overbooks, manipulates seeding and in the cruellest joke on your system, tells the beneficiary that her biometric has failed, even when he gets a positive authentication. The challenge for the anti-corruption RTI user is that the paper trail has been replaced by digital databases, sometimes secret, run by a system that does not have the inclination to act on complaints. The officials often say that biometric authentication means proof of no corruption!
Third, we were told that this delivery highway would greatly increase efficiency. It would allow administrators to see what was going on where and immediately respond at the minutest level. That leads us to ask why not one FIR has been registered for perpetuating the massive corruption that you apparently eliminated. All of you repeatedly assured us from the senior most levels to those implementing that pilots would be watched very carefully to learn and correct, and you assured us that Aadhaar would become widely used, not from compulsion but from popular demand.
So we address this to all of you who have brought us till here - the celebrated architects, the political leadership pursuing this with an unprecedented zeal, our very competent technocratic friends, researchers who have been singing praises of Aadhaar and administrators at every level. We are baffled about how this can continue. The poor, the excluded, the anaemic and the hungry have questions that relate to their life, and death. So many of those who have passed away over these last 10 months and were not able to access their food grain or pension entitlement have pleas that went unanswered. Can you please answer these questions and tell us who will be held responsible?
This calls for an “evidence-based” point by point public discussion. We hope that in the course of the debate if you accept that injustice has been done, you will help correct it.
Before we proceed further, citizens across India deserve a chance to better understand what the implications of using Aadhaar could be.
In anticipation..
(The writers are social activists who live and work in rural Rajasthan)
11560 - UP government makes it compulsory for patients, kin to have Aadhaar card to get ambulance - TNN
UP government makes it compulsory for patients, kin to have Aadhaar card to get ambulance
Harveer Dabas TNN | Jun 20, 2017, 01.58 PM IST
BIJNOR: The Uttar Pradesh government has made Aadhaar card mandatory for anyone wanting to avail its free ambulance service. Now, if a patient calls an ambulance to his home, his relative or he will have to produce their Aadhaar card. According to officials, this is being done to clamp down on anomalies in ambulance trips, including duration and distance, which have occurred. The recording of Aadhaar numbers of patients will help reduce fraudulent use of the vehicles. However, with large numbers of people, particularly in rural areas, still without Aadhaar cards, residents are expected to face considerable problems.
Health department officials pointed out that ambulance services provided by the government had several loopholes and flaws. Drivers sometimes made fake trips and wrote fraudulent details of patients to siphon off money for fuel. The drivers sometimes made fake calls themselves to make the trips. To stop such irregularities, the state government has sent a letter to all chief medical officers of districts in UP stating that Aadhaar is now a must if someone wants an ambulance.
Bijnor CMO Suhveer Singh said, "There are total of 53 ambulances, including those which can be called by dialling 102 and 108, in the district. 'Dial 102' ambulances are reserved for pregnant women, while other patients can dial 108 for an ambulance. No documents were required from the patient to avail the services earlier. Now the state government has instructed us that whenever anyone calls for an ambulance, his Aadhaar card must be produced."
Latest Comment
They may ask aadhar card in crematorioum also.!!
Natarajan Vaidyanathan
Singh added, "The government has not declared the exact date to make Aadhaar card compulsory. For the time being, if a patient's condition is serious and he has no Aadhaar card, he can be carried to hospital. But soon the card is set to be compulsory for all patients."
However, in the rural parts of the state, Aadhaar cards have still not been made by everyone. With the poor healthcare infrastructure already an issue, residents said the new rule would make the situation even more difficult for patients to reach hospital on time.
Punam Chaudhary, a resident of Puranpur village, said, "It is a good move to curb corruption in the ambulance service. But if someone does not have an Aadhaar card, what will he do? In villages like ours, ambulances don't even arrive on time and we have to manage on our own."
11559 - Sensitive data of 62 per cent of Americans leaked. Is our Aadhaar safe? - New Indian Express
By Express News Service | Published: 21st June 2017 08:22 AM |
CHENNAI: Nobody’s information is secure in an era of big data. Americans learnt it the hard way on Monday after a marketing company working for the Republican National Committee compromised sensitive personal information of more than half the country’s population.
According to a report carried by tech news website Gizmodo, sensitive details of almost 62 per cent of the US population was “accidentally left exposed” by a marketing company. This is reportedly the largest breach of electoral data in the US so far.
The compromise of data in the US - whose tech prowess has been a source of inspiration for aspiring Indians - comes at a time when protests have spiked back home against the government’s unique identification scheme, a.k.a the Aadhaar card.
Express had earlier reported how several State and Union government websites, including the Swachh Bharat Mission, leaked data of citizens who have subscribed to the Aadhaar. Details leaked included the Aadhaar number, address and in some cases, even the LPG connection numbers and phone numbers.
Back in the US, the details of citizens compromised by the company include addresses, birthdates, phone numbers, political views, opinions on gun control, stem cell research and abortion. The data was publicly available on Amazon cloud server and could be accessed by anyone who had a link.
“We take full responsibility for this situation,” said Alex Lundry, founder of Deep Root, the company that compromised the data. “Based on the information we have gathered, our systems have not been compromised.” The data was reportedly updated last in January, when Donald Trump took over as President. It is uncertain how long the data could be accessed.
The US episode is a lesson for India where the government is pushing forward with the Aadhaar programme, making it mandatory for transactions with almost every government department and select private services.
11558 - Don’t ask for Aadhaar while handling RTI applications, DoPT Office Memorandum - Bar & Bench
The Central government has directed all Ministries and government departments not to ask for Aadhaar number while dealing with RTI applications.
An Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions states the following:
“it is requested that all Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India including the subordinate offices may ensure the following while handling RTI applications viz. receiving, replying and uploading on websites etc.:-
(a) the personal information details like Aadhar no. should not be asked for while handling RTI applications.”
Besides it has also asked the ministries to take care to see that such personal information including Aadhaar is hidden from public view while uploading documents on websites
“that the Aadhar no. or such other personal information is hidden from public view while uploading the RT/ applications/ Appeals/ Replies to the RT/ applications on websites, if Aadhar no. is mentioned therein.”
11557 - Mandatory Aadhaar and Bank Accounts: How Much of This Is Legal? - The Wire
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act will likely need to be amended for mandatory Aadhaar-bank account linkage. The punishment for non-compliance, however, is without a doubt unconstitutional.
Most bank accounts will be rendered invalid if not linked with an Aadhaar number by the end of 2017. Credit: Reuters
The central government recently announced that it shall be mandatory to link Aadhaar numbers to all non-small bank accounts, failing which, access to the bank accounts will be disabled after December 31. This requirement has been brought into the law via Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 which have been notified by the government under powers delegated to it by the parliament through the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
As is often the case with this government, the question now is whether this new mandatory Aadhaar requirement (and the threatened punishment) is legal.
The legality of mandating Aadhaar-bank linking
The Aadhaar Act, 2016 imposes certain limitations on the type of activities for which the government can mandate the use of Aadhaar number for authentication. The pertinent part of the legislation, Section 7, states:
“The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, for the purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI), require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number….”
The operative words here are “receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service” where money is either appropriated or deposited in “the Consolidated Fund of India” which is basically the government’s most important account where revenue is deposited and from which the government deducts its expenses. This would cover central government schemes and services like MNREGA or issuance of passports.
Section 7 is very likely one of the reasons that the government had to get the parliament to amend the Income Tax Act to make the linking of PAN and Aadhaar numbers mandatory, rather than do it through its rule-making power under the Income Tax Act.
Although revenue from income tax is deposited in the CFI, the levy of income tax does not qualify as a “subsidy, benefit or service”. Rather, the levy of income tax is an administrative or sovereign function of the central government. However, with regard to services provided by public or private banks through bank accounts, it should be noted that this function will not be covered by Section 7 because bank accounts have no connection whatsoever to the CFI. The money deposited in a bank account is not deposited in the CFI. The balance sheets of banks are entirely different from the CFI.
The essential question now is whether the government can use its rule-making powers under the PMLA, 2002 to circumvent the limitations imposed by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016?
The PMLA, 2002 is silent on the power of the central government to require authentication of bank customers. In such cases, courts usually invoke the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, which basically means the provisions of a general law have to concede to a special legislation. In this case, the Aadhaar Act will trump the silence of the PMLA on the use of Aadhaar numbers and as already discussed above, Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act limits the purposes for which an Aadhaar number can be used.
Thus, for Aadhaar numbers to be mandatorily linked to bank accounts for customer authentication, the parliament has to amend the PMLA as it did with the Income Tax Act. Till then, the limitations of Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act will rule the field and the government cannot circumvent the provision by using its rule-making powers under different legislations.
Blocking access to bank accounts?
The second aspect of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is the requirement for banks to block access to those bank accounts of those customers who do not link their Aadhaar numbers to their accounts. Rule 17(c) states:
“In case the client fails to submit the Aadhaar number and Permanent Account Number within the aforesaid six months period, the said account shall cease to be operational till the time the Aadhaar number and Permanent Account Number is submitted by the client.”
This rule is without doubt unconstitutional because the parliament did not delegate to the central government the right to block bank accounts and deprive Indian citizens of their property.
In its preamble, the PMLA (Maintenance of Records) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 clearly identifies the source of its power as “sub-section (1) read with clause (h), clause (i), clause (j) and clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 73 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002”. None of those provisions in Section 73 of the PMLA Act allow the central government to make rules that allow it to block access to bank accounts. Those provisions only allow the central government to make rules regarding the maintenance of financial records. Blocking access to bank accounts are akin to property seizures and will in effect violate the constitutional right to property under Article 300A.
The PMLA does have extensive provisions on attachment or freezing of assets that are suspected or proven to be the fruits of money laundering or criminal activity. However, this process is quite complicated and requires a reasoned order by certain designated officers of the central government. It is simply absurd for the government to claim powers to automatically block access to bank accounts for failing to link Aadhaar numbers to bank accounts.
Modi sarkar and rule-making powers
Over the last month, the Modi government has increasingly used its rule-making powers under various laws in a manner which is contrary to the law of the land. The first instance was the highly controversial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2016, which were notified under the Prevention of Cruelty Act. One law professor described these rules as “… a constitutional misadventure on multiple grounds involving fundamental rights, separation of powers and federalism”. The constitutionality of the rules have been challenged before the Supreme Court.
The second instance were the “Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017. These rules were notified under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and as I argued in a previous piece, these rules are most certainly in violation of the law. The Madras Bar Association has now challenged the constitutionality of these rules before the Madras high court.
The PMLA (Maintenance of Records) (Second Amendment Rules), 2017 are thus the third instance of the government overstepping its boundaries. The question now is whether the government is getting the correct legal advice with regard to its rule-making powers or is it the case that the government is feeling confident enough to ignore legal advice?
Prashant Reddy T. is a research associate at the School of Law, Singapore Management University.
11556 - What is the lowdown on linking of Aadhaar-PAN for taxes? - The Hindu
What is it?
The simple act of paying your income tax to the government — an article of citizens’ faith that is not exercised by enough Indians with incomes over ₹2.5 lakh a year if you go by India’s low direct tax base — will never be the same again. Having a PAN (permanent account number) card from the Income Tax department will no longer be enough to file your returns. Starting July 1, the government has made it mandatory for taxpayers to link their Aadhaar number to their PAN cards in order to be able to file returns. Aadhaar numbers have also been made mandatory for all those applying for a new PAN card after July 1.
How did it come about?
Among several changes appended to this year’s Finance Bill that did not figure in the budget speech, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley introduced a new Section, 139 AA, in the Income Tax Act of 1961. This new Section stipulates that all PAN cardholders share their Aadhar number with the tax authorities so that the two documents can be linked, and makes quoting of Aadhaar mandatory for all PAN card applications and to file income tax returns. Parliament approved the Bill in April, including the provision that Mr. Jaitley stressed was a measure to check tax evasion by those having multiple PAN cards. The new provision also states that the existing PAN cardholders who fail to link their Aadhaar numbers will have the legal status of their PAN card revoked and those cards will be held invalid for all other purposes. However, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the move with the argument that it runs foul of the court’s earlier decision on Aadhaar-related petitions that the unique ID number cannot be made mandatory. The Supreme Court ruled on June 9 that the new provision does not violate the Constitution or its earlier order passed in 2013. For those holding Aadhaar numbers, the court said the provision would apply in totality but held that PAN cards of those who do not have Aadhaar number cannot be held as invalid “for the time being.”
Why does it matter?
PAN cards are mandatory not just for filing income tax returns, but also for deposits above ₹50,000 into bank accounts as well as purchasing property, among other things. The universe of taxpayers in India is smaller than the number of PAN cardholders. Aadhaar was introduced as a unique identification system that would pay off the government’s investment in capturing people’s biometric information by plugging leaks and benefit-cheating in welfare programmes for the poor through real-time authentication of the beneficiary’s identity. Most taxpayers, barring those earning up to ₹10 lakh a year who still get cheaper LPG cylinders, are not eligible for subsidies. Effectively, the Centre has managed to expand the ambit of Aadhaar beyond subsidy beneficiaries, thus making it a more universal identification system.
What Next?
If you don’t have an Aadhaar number yet, you could either fast-track your income tax returns and submit them before July 1 or enrol yourself for Aadhaar. For now, the government has said that even an Aadhaar enrolment number will suffice in order to file returns or apply for a PAN card. Those who already have an Aadhaar number must ensure they quote it in their returns as tax experts warn that any attempt to conceal the same would be tantamount to providing false information and invite prosecution under the income tax law, with punishment that could include imprisonment and fines. The Supreme Court may have offered limited relief to taxpayers, but the bigger battle over the Aadhaar programme will continue in its corridors as and when a Constitutional Bench is formed to examine Aadhaar-related concerns about right to privacy and human dignity as limbs of Article 21 of the Constitution.
11555 - No Aadhaar, no banking and threat to privacy: Do you have a choice? -
No Aadhaar, no banking and threat to privacy: Do you have a choice?
The government has made Aadhaar mandatory for access to banking and filing I-T returns. But there are serious concerns about possible breach of privacy with private entities having access to Aadhaar data.
New Delhi, June 17, 2017 | UPDATED 14:04 IST
On June 1, the revenue department of the finance ministry issued a notification making linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts mandatory.
The notification amended the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 to make quoting of Aadhaar mandatory along with PAN or Form 60 by individuals, companies and partnership firms for all financial transactions of Rs 50,000 or above.
This has intensified the privacy debate in the country. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee termed it anti-poor and said, "Aadhaar has serious issues about privacy." The Supreme Court is already seized with the question of privacy versus Aadhaar.
|
|
IS AADHAAR MANDATORY?
The Supreme Court has more than once told the government not to make Aadhaar mandatory for citizens.
In 2015, on two occasions, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card" asking the government to advertise this prominently.
The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen, the Supreme Court had said. However, the apex court has allowed the government to link various schemes including MNREGS, LPG, PDS, EPFO, Old Age Pension etc with Aadhaar.
But, the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 clearly read, "... the Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other."
The apex court has set up a constitutional bench to hear Aadhaar case. The Aadhaar Act 2016 also does not make Aadhaar mandatory for citizens.
HOW GOVERNMENT MADE IT MANDATORY
While the case is pending in the Supreme Court, the government has moved fast with Aadhaar enrollment drive.
This was backed by the Budget 2017 (passed by Parliament), which mandated seeding of Aadhaar number with Permanent Account Number (PAN).
Then came the amended Finance Act 2017. It made enrollment in Aadhaar compulsory for obtaining a PAN and filing Income Tax returns.
The government has court's permission to link its welfare schemes - which are voluntary in nature - with Aadhaar, which, the apex court said, could only be voluntary. This means that if a citizen does not want to avail benefits of those schemes like Old Age Pension, Widow Pension etc, s/he can stay away from Aadhaar.
The Finance Act effectively meant that an earning member of Indian society is a potential criminal if s/he does not have an Aadhaar as the citizen would not be able to file I-T returns, which s/he is legally bound to do.
ARE AADHAAR DATA IN SAFE HANDS?
Recently a report by the Centre for Internet Society said that more than 13 crore Aadhaar data were leaked, stolen or compromised.
Leakage of Aadhaar data of cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni's family members made headlines. Similar leakage of lesser mortals must have gone unnoticed.
Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act prohibits sharing, publishing, displaying or posting publicly the core biometric information collected under the project except in "the interest of national security". However, the Act does not state what constitutes national security.
Further, Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 allows private companies to use the Aadhaar data to establish "identity of an individual for any purpose".
There are several reports confirming that the Aadhaar data of Indian citizens are with companies like Accenture, Ernst and Young, L-1 Identity Solutions - the American biometric technology provider and of course, Microsoft whose Skype Lite recently ruffled many privacy right activists in the country.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the government allow access to Aadhaar data of people by these companies through Authentication User Agencies, which are both governmental and non-governmental entities.
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT?
According to an online survey conducted by noted citizen engagement platform LocalCircles, about 86 per cent of the respondents were in favour of a privacy law in India. Over 9,600 people participated in the survey.
Nearly 60 per cent of the respondents identified 18 attributes including biometrics and financial transactions to be brought under the purview of the privacy law. These attributes are:
Biometrics: Iris/retina scan, finger print scan, DNA
Personal: Aahaar details, passport details, date of birth, voter ID card details, mobile phone details, residential address information, family details, medical records
Financial: PAN card information, Bank account details, credit ratings, salary/compensation, performance at work, debit/credit card details, income tax details
RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA
There is no specific law passed by Parliament for protection against breach of privacy of individuals in India. A bill, Privacy Bill, 2011 was drafted by the UPA-II government but it is hanging fire since then.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have asked his ministerial colleagues to speed up the process regarding the Privacy Bill, on which last discussion is said to have taken place in March, 2015. The Bill is apparently on hold due to objections from intelligence agencies.
Only the Information Technology Act, 2000 has some express provision guarding individuals against breach of privacy by corporate entities. Section 43A was inserted into the IT Act in 2008 which makes the companies compromising sensitive personal data liable to pay compensation.
The government made eight rules on the basis of Section 43A of the IT Act. Beyond this, the right to privacy is dealt with under Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to life and personal liberty.
COURTS ON RIGHT TO PRIVACY
In August 2015, while hearing the Aadhaar case, the Supreme Court referred the question of the constitutional validity of the right to privacy as fundamental right to a larger bench, which has now been constituted.
But, this was not the first time when the apex court dealt with the right to privacy question. In 1954, an eight-judge bench in MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra case and in 1962 a six-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh case had equated the right to privacy with right to personal liberty but rejected it as fundamental or constitutional right.
The Delhi High Court had decriminalised homosexuality ruling a reading down of a provision in the IPC Section 377 that makes the act a crime. However, the Supreme Court later rejected the right to privacy theory in the matter upholding Section 377 of IPC.
The Supreme Court will be revisiting its old rulings and renewed legal debates when it reopens after the summer vacation and the Aadhaar case is brought up for hearing.
11554 - Mamata Banerjee against Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory - Zee News
According to the new mandate, all existing bank account holders will have to submit Aadhaar card numbers to banks by December 31 this year, failing which the accounts will become invalid.
IANS| Last Updated: Friday, June 16, 2017 -
|
|
Kolkata: Strongly opposing the Centre`s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for opening bank accounts and financial transactions of Rs 50,000 and above, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Friday said the poor will be affected by the decision most.
"The poorest of the poor and the marginalised people will be the worst sufferers if Aadhaar is made mandatory unilaterally," Banerjee tweeted.
She added that Aadhar has privacy issues and that the government should not make it compulsory.
"Aadhaar has serious issues about privacy. Govt must not make it mandatory before 100% coverage is achieved," Banerjee wrote in the next tweet.
According to the new mandate, all existing bank account holders will have to submit Aadhaar card numbers to banks by December 31 this year, failing which the accounts will become invalid.
_______________________________________________
11553 - No Country For Those Without An Aadhaar? Questions That Still Remain Unanswered - Youth Ki Awaaz
|
|
Posted by Gokul Balu in Politics, Society
June 14, 2017
|
Quite frankly, it is nothing short of a confusion. It is difficult to differentiate cause from effect because the outcome seems quite muddled up under half-baked assertions and nuances of social anxieties. The debate on the depth and viability of Aadhaar is ongoing. What remains are questions. Questions that need one definite answer.
No Country For Non-Aadhaar Holders?
Obviously, the title is stolen from a famous Hollywood movie but what better way to address the theme than with this slightly modified title? The honourable Government of India has decided to finally put an ultimatum to the never ending fiasco that is Aadhaar. Launched during the reign of the centrophilic Congress party in the year 2009 and given form and flesh by UIDAI headed by Nandan Nilekani, this was an idea which was being conceived in 2000. The objective was crystal clear, to present an identification proof which will bypass the plethora of identification documents present in our country. This alone will act as a primary identification validating a person as the rightful citizen of the country.
The concept is commendable as this will finally provide one key identification document which will fulfil the role of many. As the Aadhar website lays out, “Aadhaar numbers will eventually serve as the basis for a database with which disadvantaged Indian residents can access services that have been denied to them due to lack of identification documents.”
The process of registration rolled on from the year 2012. I still remember the chaos which followed as everyone was confused regarding the need for this new document. Many refused to wait in long queues to get their biometrics taken and I remember that the E-disha and Akshaya centres in different states in India acted as stations to process this document. We were all issued printed documents containing temporary numbers and were told that we will get the real card by post. Quite frankly, I still know many who still have not their valid official copies despite following up.
The document was declared as a proof of identification for availing public sector benefits. The program seemed like a hit-and-miss at first. Personally, the Aadhaar system proved to be a hindrance many times while availing services. Luckily, after many trials, I received mine, though I never really appreciated the photography skills on the card.
Among common households, Aadhaar became a thing to be considered, yet again, with the onset of availing LPG subsidies. The incoming BJP government stressed the need for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts belonging to the consumer to avail benefits.
A new inflow of data regarding the people of this country (made possible through an extensive census study) helped shift the project’s perception from fraudulent to feasible, after the 2014 elections.
This implementation led to an increase in the flow of subscribers for Aadhaar. Gradually, you could see its presence expanding over many domains; sometimes optional and sometimes mandatory, through subtle methods.
The big flaw in the system which presented itself as the glaring hole of data security really shook up the system’s credibility. Sakshi Dhoni’s complaint, regarding her husband’s private data breach, highlighted the need amongst citizens to finally ask questions about private data security.
In a turn of events, the new declaration from the government states that every individual who wishes to avail social benefits must be enrolled for Aadhaar before June 30, 2017. The declaration relaxes the norms for people whose enrolment facilities are not in place. It is not a country for the ones who don’t hold an Aadhar card because every ration, service, and subsidy can only be availed once the consumer has an Aadhar in hand. This is the bottom line.
The unique identification scheme has been under scrutiny for everything from its enrolment process to the half-baked privacy norms which are in place – but if it provides ease of service provision as promised, then it is definitely a welcome move. There is the need for an answer. An answer to all these questions and an answer that may not be conclusive, but at least inclusive for all.
Youth Ki Awaaz is an open platform where anybody can publish. This post does not necessarily represent the p
11552 - HC dismisses plea against submitting Aadhaar for KAS jobs - The Hindu
BENGALURU, JUNE 13, 2017 00:10 IST
KAS jobs: HC dismisses plea against using Aadhaar
In another thumbs up for use of Aadhaar by various agencies of the State, the High Court of Karnataka on Monday said there was no illegality in exercise of discretion by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) making Aadhaar mandatory for applying for posts of gazetted probationers Group A and B.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar passed the order while dismissing a PIL petition, filed by one U. Aslam Gurukkal, a resident of Bengaluru.
The KPSC, in its May 12, 2017 notification of inviting applications for recruitment of 401 posts of gazetted probationers posts group A and B, had made it clear that only those with the citizens of India having Aadhaar number are eligible to apply while asking the aspirants to submit Aadhaar number along with submission of applications online.
It was claimed in the petition that many aspirants without Aadhaar number have been deprived of applying to the Karnataka Administrative Service posts and thus deprived them of fundamental right of equal opportunity in public employment.
Noticing that the petitioner, who is a social worker, is not intended to apply for the post, the Bench dismissed the petition.
11551 - Cautious optimism: Does the Supreme Court’s Aadhaar-PAN decision hold hope for a future victory? - Scroll.In
The court says the unique identity project must pass a stringent test under the right to privacy and human dignity. Will it?
June 12, 2017
Apar Gupta
What to make of the Supreme Court’s decision in Binoy Viswam v Union of India, popularly referred to as the Aadhaar-PAN linking case? Is it “pro” or “anti” Aadhaar?
The legal challenge to Aadhaar began in 2012 when a clutch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. Aadhaar is a biometric-based 12-digit unique identification number the Indian government wants to every citizen to have. Broadly, the objections were on three grounds – privacy and autonomy, exclusion and denial of benefits, and finally national security.
In August 2015, the court referred all Aadhaar cases to a constitution bench. Primarily, the bench will decide whether Aadhaar violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On the face of it, Article 21 is restrictive, explicitly guaranteeing only the rights to life and liberty. Over the decades, though, the Supreme Court has read several subsidiary rights, including to privacy, in this provision, reasoning that the right to life guarantees a person’s dignity, not merely animal existence.
In the Aadhaar case, the government has argued that the court’s decisions recognising the right to privacy under Article 21 do not adequately deal with its own conflicting judgements on the subject. In other words, the existence and extent of the right to privacy in India is not settled. It was to address this technical inconsistency that the entire batch of Aadhaar cases was sent to a Constitution bench.
As it takes time for a Constitution bench to be constituted and for it to sit and decide the matter, the judgement on Aadhaar has been delayed. The delay, while regrettable, is not unusual, but it has come to define every subsequent litigation and hearing related to Aadhaar.
Here, some questions need to be answered. Until a Constitution bench is formed, can the government force every Indian to get Aadhaar, or make it mandatory for accessing various services?
The day the court referred the matter to a Constitution bench, it restricted the use of Aadhaar to a limited set of services such as cooking gas. Even for these services, Aadhaar was made voluntary. Voluntary, that is, in plain English, without the masquerade of inverted commas or legal jargon that camouflages coercion. This was so benefits are not denied to a person merely for not possessing Aadhaar. The court’s orders, however, have been defeated by legal stratagems of the government.
A year later, the Narendra Modi government brought the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and argued that it had effectively done away with the restraints placed by the apex court. Aadhaar could now be extended to all services, even made mandatory.
Soon, fresh petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Aadhaar Act and the notifications issued under it. Since many of the petitions dealt with the right to privacy, they were tagged with the previous pleas awaiting the formation of a constitution bench. While the petitioners awaited adjudication, Aadhaar expanded inexorably to encompass services such as mid-day meals and the permanent account number, or PAN.
Aadhaar is mandatory for schoolchildren to get mid-day meals from June 30. Photo credit: UIDAI
Weak case
PAN is necessary for paying income tax but also for participation in India’s formal economy. Early this year, the Modi government, using the questionable instrument of the Finance Act, 2017, added Section 139AA to the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Its two key sub-sections become operative from July 1, 2017. One makes it mandatory to quote Aadhaar for applying for PAN and for filing income tax returns. The other states that a person who has PAN and can get Aadhaar “shall intimate it in any manner as may be specified at a later date by the government”. Non-compliance is punished by the cancellation of PAN.
Challenges to Section 139AA came promptly. The Supreme Court offered the petitioners a choice: it could bunch this matter with the Aadhaar petitions awaiting the formation of a constitution bench or it could hear the case without considering arguments about the right to privacy. The first option would adjourn the case to an indeterminate future date while the latter would remove privacy as a ground for challenge, thereby making the case considerably weaker.
Aware that previous challenges that availed of the first option had failed to contain the Aadhaar blitzkrieg – and the court has shown no urgency to form a constitution bench – the petitioners opted to argue the Aadhaar-PAN challenge without touching upon the right to privacy.
In effect, the challenge to Section 139AA was a limited objection premised on Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, alongside doctrines of statutory inconsistency and legislative competence. Without the aid of Article 21, these were subsidiary and weaker points of challenge. Moreover, the challenge was limited to Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, not to the provisions Aadhaar Act or the scheme itself.
The court, in its judgement on June 9, rejected all the limited objections, reasoning that Parliament had the power to enact the specific provisions. Each point of rejection, however, raises a question that constitutional bench must answer. Whether Aadhaar “should remain voluntary or it can be made mandatory imposing compulsiveness”?
Sliver of hope
Still, even while rejecting all points of challenge to Section 139AA, the Supreme Court has provided a sliver of hope. For one, it has stayed cancellation of PAN as the penalty for not having Aadhaar, citing twin reasons. One, the penalty is severe. Cancelling the PAN would literally be a “civil death” as it would disqualify the person from day to day financial transactions that require it to be quoted, the court said. The second reason is more significant. The court stated:
“The validity of the provision upheld in the aforesaid manner is subject to passing the muster of Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the issue before the Constitution Bench...Till then, there shall remain a partial stay on the operation of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act.”
The implications of this statutory recasting are still being debated by legal experts, not least because it is ambiguous. Given that Section 139AA(1) stands as is, will Aadhaar still be mandatory for filing income tax returns? Is the stay only on the penalty for commercial transactions or does it apply to filing tax returns as well? If a person files the returns without quoting Aadhaar, will the filing be rejected, marked defective or accepted without the prescribed penalty of PAN cancellation?
That the judgement is not happily worded on these aspects is worrying because the government may adopt an interpretation that best serves its interests. The Central Board of Direct Taxes’ clarification on Saturday seems to confirm the apprehension: it is necessary for people without Aadhaar to obtain one if they wish to file their tax returns after July 1. This only adds urgency to the final determination of the Aadhaar cases by a Constitution bench.
Significantly, the June 9 judgement holds that restrictions placed by the apex court on the use of Aadhaar in 2015 cannot prevent the legislature from enacting provisions such as Section 139AA. This aspect of the judgement requires wider examination given the challenges in several High Courts against Aadhaar-related notifications draw strength from such orders. It also reinforces the seriousness of the main challenges to the Aadhaar Act as well as the constitutional reference.
On June 27, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a separate batch of petitions against the coercive nature of the Aadhaar Act and its denial of services. We may approach the hearing with tempered hope, but the fact is that until a constitution bench sits and decides, the legal opposition to Aadhaar cannot be properly adjudicated on the touchstone of our right to life, privacy and human dignity.
For now, the Aadhaar-PAN judgement is a cause for cautious optimism. It states that Aadhaar and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act have to pass a “more stringent test” under Article 21. It also reinforces the spirit of earlier orders limiting the Aadhaar scheme by giving a limited stay on Section 139AA(2). At the same time, the decision signals urgency, and hope, for a more substantial challenge to the Aadhaar project.
Apar Gupta is a lawyer practising in Delhi. He assists senior counsel for petitioners in some Aadhaar cases and believes that Aadhaar violates individual privacy and also leads to denial of services to the most vulnerable Indians.
We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
11550 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 27th June 2017
|
|
Economic Times
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today refused to pass any interim order against the Centre's notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The Hindu
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government notified the mandatory furnishing of Aadhaar card details for those seeking subsidy on e-rickshaws ...
|
|
||||
|
|
ETtech.com
Linking Aadhaar to bank accounts is a recipe for creating benami bank accounts and scaling benami bank transactions. It threatens to destroy your ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The New Indian Express
If you want to continue using your bank account and you carry out cash transactions of over Rs 50,000, you need to have linked your Aadhaar number ...
|
|
||||
|
|
EnergyInfraPost
To plug the scope of misuse of the concession facilities offered by the Indian Railways, Aadhaar Card or Unique Identification (UID) card will be made ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The New Indian Express
KOCHI: The fight against Aadhaar appears to be individualistic and simplistic to many. The Attorney General of India in his arguments in the Supreme ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Oneindia
On March 27, the Supreme Court had ordered that the government cannot be stopped from using Aadhaar identification for its non-welfare schemes ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Condé Nast Traveller India
Aadhaar's superpowers end at India's borders, evidently. “Aadhaar (UID) card is not an acceptable travel document for travel to Nepal/Bhutan,” the ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Zee News
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass any interim order against the Centre's notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Moneylife
The Supreme Court while refusing to pass any order or interim order in Aadhaar case had said that those who do not have the UID would not be ...
|
|
||||
|
|
The New Indian Express
“We were asked to bring all family members and Aadhaar cards for reissuing. We were told that they wanted to avoid bogus members when issuing ...
|
|
||||
|
|
NDTV
... variety of topics including aggregate turnover, GSTIN or GST identification number, input tax credit (ITC), tax invoice and recording of Aadhaar/PAN.
|
|
||||
|
|
Republica
In a recent communiqué, Indian Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) said Aadhaar card is not a valid identification document for Indians travelling to Nepal ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Financial Express
A total of over 18 crore ration cards, or 78% of the total, have been seeded with Aadhaar — this was just around 2% in May 2014. Thanks to Aadhaar ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Hindustan Times
Besides, investigation revealed financial irregularities in uploading Aadhaar details of trainees. The ministry of skill development and ...
|
|
||||
|
|
Scroll.in
Other headlines: US named Syed Salahuddin a global terrorist, and SC said those without Aadhaar cannot be deprived of government benefits till the ...
|
|||||