13578 - People have seen through Narendra Modi’s dramebaazi: Congress leader Jairam Ramesh - New Indian Express

People have seen through Narendra Modi’s dramebaazi: Congress leader Jairam Ramesh

Jairam Ramesh tells Amit Agnihotri that chances of a Congress-led coalition coming to power after 2019 cannot be ruled out as a large section of the electorate is disenchanted with the Prime Minister.

Published: 20th May 2018 01:34 AM  |   Last Updated: 20th May 2018 05:09 AM

  |  A+A A-

Former Union Minister and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh (File photo | PTI)

By Amit Agnihotri

Express News Service

A Congress-led coalition could well come to power at the Centre after the 2019 general elections as a large section of the people is disappointed with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, says senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. In an exclusive interview with The New Sunday Express, he says demonetisation, faulty rollout of the goods and services tax regime, gross neglect of the farm crisis, rural distress and lack of job creation had contributed to the disenchantment against the Central government and would limit the BJP’s chances of returning to power. The Congress would, therefore, need to focus on forging a formidable alliance, address organisational issues and reach out to the voters. Congress chief Rahul Gandhi has been claiming the party will dethrone Prime Minister Modi in the 2019 national elections.

What is your assessment?

I wish the Congress can get 272 Lok Sabha seats, but that is highly unlikely. We will plan to get 272, but it is difficult. I feel the BJP, too, is not in a position to get 272. There could be a coalition led by either the BJP or the Congress at the Centre. Whether Congress leads the coalition will depend on the numbers.

But would Rahul become the Prime Minister of that grouping?

Rahul recently said he would be Prime Minister if the Congress has 272. In case we have around 150, we would have to sit down with the allies to decide the prime ministerial candidate. Rahul meant that if we are in a position to choose the Prime Minister, then he would be the Congress candidate. Unlike Modi, who asserted in the BJP office in September 2013 that he wanted to be the prime ministerial candidate for 2014, Rahul has not claimed so.

I feel it is too early to start speculating on who will be Prime Minister. Every party is jostling for space, but only Congress has a nationwide presence. Mamata Banerjee cannot win seats outside West Bengal and KC Rao cannot win seats outside Telangana.

Can you tell us what kind of effort the Congress is putting in to build an Opposition grouping?

The Congress led a pre-poll alliance in 2004. Congress has prepoll allies like RJD, NCP, and NC, but it could have a pact with some parties only post-poll. The BJP, in comparison, will have only two pre-poll allies, Shiv Sena and Akali Dal, but both are unhappy with the saffron party.

What are the three big failures of the Modi government that the Congress can highlight?

Neglect of the farm sector, distress in rural areas and disconnect between Modi’s claims and the reality. A very large section of India is disappointed with Modi. He has not done what he claimed. Second, he has been claiming he has done many things, but that is not the reality. Third, the style of his governance is hollow, there is a lot of ‘dramabaazi’. People have seen through it and are becoming increasingly disenchanted with him.

What about jobs?

Rahul Gandhi keeps saying it is the biggest challenge before the country… Jobs have always been a big issue and it did not start with Modi. But what we are hearing now are completely bogus claims by the government that India does not have a job problem. The numbers of jobs created being cited are based on the intellectual dishonesty of the NITI Aayog and the Prime Minister. NITI economists like Surjit Bhalla and Rajeev Kumar have given up the pretence of honesty.

You have been a strong critic of Prime Minister Modi’s economic policies. Why?

Demonetisation was a bad idea implemented terribly as only a crank economist can think of such ideas. GST was a great idea but implemented forcibly. It was inevitable, but why did Modi oppose it for two years as Gujarat chief minister when the UPA tried to pass it?

From March 2011, Yashwant Sinha, as chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on finance, took two and a half years to give its report on the GST Bill and then rejected it. Sinha also rejected the Aadhaar Bill, because of which the UPA could not provide legal backing. Modi consistently opposed GST as Gujarat chief minister. I met him in Gujarat, but he took a U-turn after becoming Prime Minister.

You had filed a plea in the Supreme Court on why the Aadhaar Bill was passed as a money Bill. In 2013, you had hailed the Aadhaar- based Direct Benefits Transfer as a game-changer. What is your take on the privacy controversy?

See, my petition in the Supreme Court is only limited to whether it was a money Bill or not. It was wrong to make it a money Bill. I moved five amendments, which were passed in the Rajya Sabha. Had they been incorporated in the Bill, they would have addressed the issues and there would have been no need for court cases. Aadhaar is a good idea for delivery of services, but the manner of its implementation is bad. Why do I need an Aadhaar for air tickets or a death certificate? The Modi government has made a mockery of Aadhaar.

I never thought I would need an Aadhaar and I did not have it till 2017. It is needed for people getting subsidies. Further, authentication of senior citizens is problematic. To be cautious, I had started DBT in phases, first in only 50 districts.

After Rahul took over as Congress chief in December, is the promised transformation in the party happening?

It is happening, not in one tsunami but in phases. Younger people are in charge of states. Rahul is conscious that he needs to take a legacy with him as people have spent careers in the party. He has to build his own team.

I think it would be 60 per cent young and 40 per cent seniors. Over time, the 60 per cent will become 70 per cent and the organisation will keep growing. For instance, Ashok Gehlot is now AICC in-charge of organisation. He has been in the NSUI, Youth Congress, was state unit chief, Union Minister and Chief Minister of Rajasthan. He is quintessentially Congress party but no longer a younger face.

13441 - AG: Aadhaar Bill rightly categorised as Money Bill - TNN

AG: Aadhaar Bill rightly categorised as Money Bill

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN | May 3, 2018, 03:16 IST

HIGHLIGHTS

• "The Bill was rightly categorised as ‘Money Bill” under Article 110(1) (c),(d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution," AG said
• The AG said a law cannot be complete without providing for ancillary issues to achieve the objective behind spending huge sums from the consolidated fund

NEW DELHI": The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that provisions of Article 110 of the Constitution were adhered to while categorising Aadhaar as a Money Bill, which had enabled the NDA government to avoid the legislation being scuttled in Rajya Sabha where it lacked a majority. 

With Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other. Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill being termed as a Money Bill by Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, its passage in the lower House cleared the way for its coming into force as amendments proposed by Rajya Sabha became advisory in nature. Appearing for Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, who had questioned categorisation of Aadhaar as a Money Bill, former finance minister P Chidamabaram had argued that this was a trick played by the NDA government to rob Rajya Sabha and the President from having a say on the Bill and make amendments to strengthen it. 

Attorney general K K Venugopal said since the Centre was to spend Rs 55,000 crore from the Consolidated Fund of India for providing subsidies, benefits and services to a targeted section of population, the Bill was rightly categorised as ‘Money Bill” under Article 110(1) (c),(d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution.

However, a bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan drew the AG’s attention to the definition of ‘Money Bill” in Article 110(1) which said the Bill must contain “only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters”. The bench said the Aadhaar Act, apart from containing the reference to the source of funds from the CFI, had a host of provisions on ancillary issues.

TOP COMMENT

Then why did you enforce aadhar for buying sim cards?

Why this flip flop all the time?

Asharaf Syedali

The AG said a law cannot be complete without providing for ancillary issues to achieve the objective behind spending huge sums from the consolidated fund. Appearing for UIDAI and Centre, advocate Zoheb Hossain said linking Aadhaar with PAN has helped authorities detect Rs 33,000 crore, which would have otherwise gone down as an undisclosed amount.

“Apart from this additional benefit, the Aadhaar linkage with PAN has helped the authorities to track down shell companies with dummy directors, who were playing havoc with banking system,” he said. He said, “No person shall be tracked or profiled through use of Aadhaar. Sharing or disclosing Aadhaar data is a punishable offence and that requesting agencies cannot store transaction that followed authentication through Aadhaar.” Arguments by AG would continue on Thursday.

12961 - Aadhaar hearings: Day 15 saw arguments on Aadhaar as a money bill, interim orders for NEET registrations were also passed - First Post

Aadhaar hearings: Day 15 saw arguments on Aadhaar as a money bill, interim orders for NEET registrations were also passed

News-Analysis 

Asheeta Regidi 

Mar 08, 2018 12:53 PM IST

On Day 15 of the Aadhaar hearings, senior counsel Arvind Datar concluded his arguments for the petitioners, and senior counsel and former minister P Chidambaram commenced his. The main arguments revolved around Aadhaar as a money bill. A range of other issues were also raised, including the validity of Sections 57 and 7 of the Aadhaar Act, an excessive delegation under the Act and that the ‘foolproof’ Aadhaar-PAN linkage could be circumvented merely by entering 12 zeros in the Income Tax return forms.

The Court also passed interim orders allowing alternate identifications such as driving license, ration cards, etc., for registration for NEET and other entrance examinations. In addition, the Court said that it would address the issue of extending the 31 March deadline on a conclusion of P Chidambaram’s arguments.

Consent for Aadhaar is not ‘free’

Datar started his arguments for the day on the issue of consent, arguing that asking people to either consent or risk having their bank accounts blocked, was not consent at all. In such a situation, there could neither be ‘consent’ nor ‘free consent’ as per the Indian Contract Act. This is more so when one party has a position of dominance over the other. This, in effect, vitiates the ‘consent’ taken from the people for Aadhaar.

Private party use of Aadhaar removes money bill nexus

Commencing the argument on the Aadhaar Act as a money bill, it was argued that the use of Aadhaar was bound by its Statement of Objects, which refers to the ‘delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India’. If the Aadhaar Act is upheld, then the uses to which it can be put should not extend beyond that outlined in these objects.

The arguments then returned to Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, the section which permits anyone, including private parties to use Aadhaar, and which has widely been used as the basis for making Aadhaar mandatory for various purposes. The Bench, here, observed that another key issue was that the minute private parties were involved, the Act’s nexus with a money bill is lost.

Rajya Sabha recommendations for deletion of Section 57

The Rajya Sabha, it must be remembered, had in fact recommended the deletion of this section at the time of deliberating the Aadhaar Bill in parliament. The rejection of these recommendations was also pointed to by the petitioners. In particular, the fact that had Aadhaar not been a money bill, then the Lok Sabha would have been forced to pay heed to the Rajya Sabha recommendations, including the deletion of Section 57 as well as to provide an opt-out clause.

Aadhaar as a universal identifier like  the SSN

To bring out the issue with the near-universal use of Aadhaar, the adoption and subsequent rejection of the Social Security Number (SSN) as a de facto standard universal identifier in the US was also raised. A US governmental report on ‘Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens’, which had criticised the use of SSN as such was quoted. It is important to note that this report was used in debates that happened in the US Senate back in 1974. This report had also said that an individual will be entitled to refuse to show his SSN number, and it would be unlawful for any federal agency to deny the provision of any benefit the individual is entitled to for this reason.

This was compared to the use of Aadhaar today.  It was argued that today, it was not possible for an individual to survive without Aadhaar, and it was needed from ‘birth to death’. It was further argued that worldwide, there was a turn towards limiting the use of data while here, the opposite was happening.

In view of this, it was argued that Section 57 allowing the use of Aadhaar for ‘any purpose’ could not be interpreted to mean use for ‘all purposes’. The Bench, here, also questioned if there was any compelling state interest in authorising private parties to mandate Aadhaar. Further, previous arguments on Section 57 as an excessive delegation of essential functions were reiterated.

Mandating Aadhaar for receipt of subsidies

The petitioners then turned to Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which makes Aadhaar mandatory for receiving subsidies. Under this, it was argued, any one of 18 ID proofs, including ration cards, could be shown to obtain Aadhaar. Once obtained, however, every one of these ID proofs were in effect invalidated.

It was argued that the livelihood of the people could not be made dependent on a machine that was probabilistic and inherently faulty. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Swaraj Abhiyan case, which permitted alternative identifications other than ration cards for receiving entitlements under the National Food Security Act in drought-affected areas, was quoted in this context.

A man goes through the process of eye scanning for the Unique Identification (UID) database system, also known as Aadhaar, at a registration centre in New Delhi, India. Image: Reuters

Aadhaar-PAN can be circumvented by entering 12 Zeros

Turning to the Aadhaar-PAN judgment, the petitioners argued that an important argument of the State, in that case, was that the Aadhaar PAN linkage was a foolproof method of ensuring that there were no fake PANs. Yet, an example of a person was cited who simply entered 12 zeros in the required column, and his income tax returns were accepted, processed, and refund made.

A strict interpretation of ‘money bill’

On completion of Datar’s arguments, senior counsel P Chidambaram commenced his arguments. His arguments dealt extensively with the classification of the Aadhaar Bill as a ‘money bill’. This term is defined under Article 110 of the Constitution, as a bill that deals ‘only’ with certain issues, such as regarding the imposition of tax or the borrowing of money by the Indian government, or the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund of India.

It was argued that the term ‘only’ be strictly interpreted. This is in view of the fact that a money bill is a very special kind of bill, one which leads to the removal of the powers of the Rajya Sabha and the President in the passing of the legislation. This, it was argued, required very careful and strict interpretation to classify a given bill as a money bill.

Arguments for the petitioners will continue on Tuesday, 13 March.

Sources of arguments include live tweeting of the case by @SFLC.in,  @gautambhatia88 and @prasanna_s, and LiveLaw reports.

Read our past coverage of the on-going Aadhaar Supreme court hearing:

Why SC needs to look into technical evidence of Aadhaar’s surveillance capabilities

Lack of governmental ownership of CIDR’s source code can have serious consequences

Will State give citizens rights only if they agree to be tracked forever, asks lawyer Shyam Divan

Coalition for Aadhaar: A collective of private companies wants to ensure that Aadhaar ID and related services continue to be offered

Petitioners argue on centralisation of data and challenge Aadhaar’s claims on savings

Petitioners argue for a voluntary ID card system that does not collect user data

Petitioners argue that receipt of govt benefits cannot be at the cost of compromising fundamental rights

Aadhaar is architecturally unconstitutional, argue the petitioners

Petitioners seek compensation for starvation deaths and extension of March 31st deadline

Mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts violates the 'Right to Equality', argue petitioners

The author is a lawyer and author specializing in technology laws. She is also a certified information privacy professional.

#Aadhaar #Aadhaar Case #Aadhaar Hearings #Aadhaar Special #Aadhaar Updates #Aadhaar-PAN Linkage #AadhaarSpecial #Arvind Datar #Asheeta Regidi #Biometric Data #CriticalPoint #Right To Privacy

Published Date: Mar 08, 2018 12:53 PM | Updated Date: Mar 08, 2018 12:53 PM

Also See

• Aadhaar hearings: Mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts violates the 'Right to Equality', argue petitioners
   Aadhaar hearing: Section 7 exception in Supreme Court’s interim order greatly affects people’s constitutional rights
   The UIDAI needs to realize the harm sharing Aadhaar, PAN and other crucial data can cause to the system
   Exploring the need for a right against automated decisions in India in view of Aadhaar based biometric authentication

• 
  

12507 - Supreme Court notice to Centre on Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar Bill - Economic Times

Supreme Court notice to Centre on Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar Bill

PTI|

Dec 15, 2017, 06.37 PM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Centre on a plea by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the government's decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill and pass it during the budget session last year after rejecting amendments to it by the Rajya Sabha. 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Centre on a plea by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the government's decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill and pass it during the budget session last year after rejecting amendments to it by the Rajya Sabha. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre and others, and tagged the plea of Ramesh with the clutch of petitions against the Aadhaar scheme itself for hearing by a five-judge Constitution bench on January 17 next year. 

Senior advocate and Congress leader Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Ramesh, said the government wrongly decided to term Aadhaar bill as a money bill and the issue needed to be debated and decided by the court. 

"Issue notice. As similar matters are listed on January 17, let this matter be listed on the same day," the bench said. 

Earlier, the apex court had said that it was "tentatively not convinced" about the grounds cited by the Congress leader to challenge Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to certify a bill to amend Aadhaar law as a money bill. 

The observation had come after the government contended that it fulfilled the criteria for certification as money bill as funds for welfare schemes for which the biometric identification number (Aadhaar) was necessary has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India

The Centre took the stand that the decision of the Speaker cannot be brought under judicial scrutiny. 

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 was discussed and passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11 last year. 

It was then taken up in Rajya Sabha on March 16, where several amendments were made to it. The bill was then returned the same evening to Lok Sabha which rejected all amendments proposed by the Upper House and passed it. 

A money bill contains provisions for various taxes and appropriation of funds, and can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha cannot make amendments to such bills after passage by the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can suggest amendments but it depends on the Lok Sabha to accept or reject them. 

The NDA government chose to categorise the bill as a money bill as it lacked a majority in the Rajya Sabha. 

Read more at:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.comhttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-notice-to-centre-on-jairam-rameshs-plea-on-aadhaar-bill/printarticle/62085696.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

11951 - SC to hear plea against tabling of Aadhaar bill as money bill in November - Business Standard

SC to hear plea against tabling of Aadhaar bill as money bill in November

IANS  |  New Delhi 

Last Updated at September 1, 2017 20:22 IST

The Supreme Court will hear, in November, the plea by senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the propriety of the Narendra Modi government to bring the Aadhaar Act as a money bill before Parliament and Lok Sabha Speaker allowing the same.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M.Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y.Chandrachud said that the matter would be taken up in the first week of November after senior counsel Kapil Sibal on Friday urged the court to hear the matter as the issue involved was important.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial & Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Bill, 2016 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2016 and it was taken up by Rajya Sabha a week later on March 16, 2016. The upper house had returned the bell with some proposed amendments which were rejected by Lok Sabha.

Opposing the plea, the Central government had on February 13 that the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker to certify the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill could not be called into question before any court.

Citing Article 110 of the Constitution that defines "Money Bill", it had contended that all the money required for social welfare schemes that are linked to Aadhaar number would be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.

However, Ramesh had contended that when the original bill was not a money bill, then how could its amendment be a money bill.

Challenging the constitutional validity of the act, Ramesh had termed the introduction of Aadhaar Bill as a "money bill" nothing but a "brazen and malafide attempt to bypass the approval of the Rajya Sabha which holds an important place in the Constitutional and democratic framework of law-making".

The upper house of Parliament has limited powers in case of a money bill, and cannot amend it but only make non-binding suggestions.

--IANS

pk/vd

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

11950 - Supreme Court to hear Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar in November - Money Control

Sep 01, 2017 12:58 PM IST | Source: PTI

Supreme Court to hear Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar in November

The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Ramesh and was seeking an early hearing on the plea.

The Supreme Court today said it would hear Congress leader Jairam Ramesh's plea challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to certify a bill to amend the Aadhaar law as a money bill in the first week of November.

The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Ramesh and was seeking an early hearing on the plea.

When the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said the matter would be heard in the first week of November, Sibal requested for an earlier date as it had nothing to do with the batch of petitions pending in the main Aadhaar matter.

"Can't it be heard earlier? It has nothing to do with the Aadhaar matter. It is about the issue related to money bill and has nothing to do with right to privacy," Sibal said.

However, the bench said the plea would be heard in November.

The apex court had on August 30 said it would hear a batch of petitions challenging the government's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes in the first week of November.

The apex court had in February observed that it was "tentatively not convinced" with Ramesh's grounds to challenge the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to certify the bill to amend Aadhaar law as a money bill.

Observing that the issue was "important and serious" and it did not want to take a call on it in haste, the court had told the counsel appearing for Ramesh to prepare his case by taking into account all the objections raised by the Centre.

The Centre had opposed the plea saying that it fulfilled the criteria as the expenditure for the welfare schemes had to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Ramesh had earlier claimed in the apex court that the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 was certified as a money bill to avoid its scrutiny by the Rajya Sabha which does not have any say on such legislations.

The Bill was discussed and passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11 last year.

It was taken up in the Rajya Sabha on March 16, where several amendments were made to it.

The bill was returned the same evening to the Lok Sabha, which rejected all the amendments adopted by the Upper House and passed it without any of these changes.

11928 - Jairam Ramesh seeks early hearing on plea challenging Aadhaar Act being passed as money bill - Live Mint

Jairam Ramesh seeks early hearing on plea challenging Aadhaar Act being passed as money bill

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh approaches Supreme Court, seeks an early hearing in a challenge to the introduction of the Aadhaar Act as a money bill in Parliament

Priyanka Mittal

New Delhi: Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court, seeking an early hearing in a challenge to the introduction of the Aadhaar Act as a money bill in Parliament.

A bench headed by chief justice Dipak Misra asked Ramesh’s counsel P. Chidambaram to mention the matter again on Friday for consideration.

The Centre’s 12-digit unique identification project, Aadhaar, is again in the limelight since the top court’s landmark ruling on 24 August, deeming privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The challenge was first brought in April 2016, where the senior Congress leader had challenged Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, claiming it to be “unconstitutional” as it was incorrectly introduced as a money bill.

Former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi had earlier told the court that a matter of legislative procedure cannot be challenged in court. Contesting Rohatgi’s views, Chidambaram had said that the ruling of the Speaker was not enough if it was a substantial violation of procedure.

The matter is likely to be taken up on 1 September.

First Published: Tue, Aug 29 2017. 11 56 AM IST

10856 - Can the Judiciary Upturn the Lok Sabha Speaker’s Decision on Aadhaar? - The Wire

Can the Judiciary Upturn the Lok Sabha Speaker’s Decision on Aadhaar?

BY AMBER SINHA ON 21/02/2017 • 1 COMMENT

When ruling on the petition filed by Jairam Ramesh challenging passing the Aadhaar Act as a money Bill, the court has differing precedents to look at.

Jairam Ramesh (L) has said Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan’s decision to pass the Aadhaar Act as a money Bill is unconstitutional. It remains to be seen what the court will say. Credit: PTI

In an earlier article, I had argued that the characterisation of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, as a money Bill by Sumitra Mahajan, speaker of the Lok Sabha, was erroneous. 

Specifically, I had argued that upon perusal of Article 110 (1) of the constitution, the Aadhaar Act does not satisfy the conditions required of a money Bill. For a legislation to be classified as a money Bill, it must comprise of ‘only’ provisions dealing with the following matters: (a) imposition, regulation and abolition of any tax, (b) borrowing or other financial obligations of the government of India, (c) custody, withdrawal from or payment into the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or Contingent Fund of India, (d) appropriation of money out of CFI, (e) expenditure charged on the CFI or (f) receipt or custody or audit of money into CFI or public account of India; or (g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f).

Article 110 is modelled on Section 1(2) of the UK’s Parliament Act, 1911, which also defines money Bills as those only dealing with certain enumerated matters. The use of the word ‘only’ was brought up by Ghanshyam Singh Gupta during the constituent assembly debates. He pointed out that the use of the word ‘only’ limits the scope money Bills to only those legislations which did not deal with other matters. His amendment to delete the word ‘only’ was rejected, clearly establishing the intent of the framers of the constitution to keep the ambit of money Bills extremely narrow. G.V. Mavalankar, the first speaker of Lok Sabha, had stated that the word ‘only’ must not be construed so as to give an overly restrictive meaning. For instance, a Bill which deals with taxation could have provisions which deal with the administration of the tax. The finance minister, Arun Jaitley, referred to these words by Mavalankar, justifying the classification of the Aadhaar Act as a money Bill.

While the Aadhaar Bill does makes references to benefits, subsidies and services funded by the CFI, even a cursory reading of the Bill reveals its main objectives as creating a right to obtain a unique identification number and providing for a statutory apparatus to regulate the entire process. Any reasonable reading of the legislation would be hard pressed to view all provisions in the Aadhaar Act, aside from the one creating a charge on the CFI, as merely administrative provisions incidental to the creation such charge. The mere fact of establishing the Aadhaar number as the identification mechanism for benefits and subsidies funded by the CFI does not give it the character of a money Bill. The Bill merely speaks of facilitating access to unspecified subsidies and benefits rather than their creation and provision being the primary object of the legislation. Erskine May’s seminal textbook, Parliamentary Practice, is instructive in this respect and makes it clear that a legislation which simply makes a charge on the consolidated fund does not becomes a money Bill if otherwise its character is not that of one. Further, the subordinate regulations notified under the Aadhaar Act deal almost entirely with matters to do with enrolment, updation, authentication of the Aadhaar number and related matters such as data security regulations and sharing of information collected, rather than the provision of benefits or subsidies or disbursal of funds otherwise from the CFI.

However, in the context of the petition filed by former Union minister Jairam Ramesh challenging the passage of the law on Aadhaar as a money Bill, the more important question is whether the judiciary has a right to question the speaker’s decision in such a matter. If not, any other questions about whether the legislation is a money Bill will remain merely academic in nature.

Irregularity vs illegality

Article 110 (3) clearly states that with regard to the question whether a legislation is a money Bill or not, the decision of the speaker is final and binding. The question is whether such a clause completely excludes any judicial review. Further, Article 122 prohibits the courts from questioning the validity of any proceedings in parliament on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

During the arguments in the court, the attorney general questioned the locus standi of Ramesh. The petition has been made under Article 32 of the constitution and the government argued that no fundamental rights of Ramesh were violated. However, the court has asked Ramesh to make his submission and adjourned the hearing to July. The petition by Ramesh would hinge largely on the powers of the judiciary to question the decision of the speaker of the Lok Sabha.

The powers of privilege that parliamentarians enjoy are integral to the principle of separation of powers. The rationale behind parliamentary privilege is to prevent interference in the lawmakers’ powers to perform essential functions. The ability to speak and vote inside the legislature without the fear of punishment is certainly essential to the role of a lawmaker. However, the extent of this protection lies at the centre of this discussion. During the constituent assembly debates, H.V. Kamath and others had argued for a schedule to exhaustively codify the existing privileges. However, B.R. Ambedkar pointed to the difficulty of doing so and parliamentary privilege on the lines of the British parliamentary practice was retained in the constitution. In the last few decades, a judicial position has emerged that courts could exercise a limited degree of scrutiny over privileges, as they are primarily responsible for interpreting the constitution.

In the matter of Raja Ram Pal vs The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, it had been clarified that proceedings of the legislature were immune from questioning by courts in the case of procedural irregularity but not in the case of illegality. In this case, the Supreme Court while dealing with Article 122 stated that it does not oust review by the judiciary in cases of “gross illegality, irrationality, violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity.”

In 1968, the speaker of the Punjab legislative assembly adjourned the proceedings for a period of two months following rowdy behaviour. Subsequently, an ordinance preventing such a suspension was promulgated and the legislature was summoned by the governor to consider some expedient financial matters. The speaker disagreed with the decision and after some confusion, the deputy speaker passed a few Bills as money Bills. While looking into the question of what was protected from judicial review, the court stated that the protection did not extend to breaches of mandatory provisions of the constitution, only to directory provisions. By that logic, if Article 110 (1) is seen as a mandatory provision, a breach of its provisions could lead to an interpretation that the Supreme Court may well question an erroneous decision by the speaker of the Lok Sabha to certify a legislation as a money Bill. The use of the word “shall” in Article 110 (1), the nature and design of the provision, its overriding impact on the other constitutional provisions granting the Rajya Sabha powers are ample evidence of its mandatory nature. Based on the above, Anup Surendranath has argued that the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a money Bill when it does not satisfy the constitutional conditions for it does amount to a gross illegality.

The judicial precedent in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui vs State of Uttar Pradesh where the matter of the court’s power to question the decision of a speaker was considered, though, leans in the other direction. In 2012, the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 was passed as money Bill by the Uttar Pradesh state legislature. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed challenging its constitutional validity. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court looked into the application of Article 212. It is the provision corresponding to Article 122, dealing with the power of the courts to inquire into the proceedings of the state legislature. The court held that Article 212 makes “it clear that the finality of the decision of the Speaker and the proceedings of the State Legislature being important privilege of the State Legislature, viz., freedom of speech, debate and proceedings are not to be inquired by the Courts.” Importantly, ‘proceedings of the legislature’ were deemed to include within its scope everything done in transacting parliamentary business, including the passage of the Bill. While the court did acknowledge the limitations of parliamentary privilege as established in the Raja Ram Pal case, it did not adequately take into account the reasoning in it.

The Aadhaar Act is a legislation which makes it mandatory of all residents to enrol for a biometric identification system in order to avail certain subsidies, benefits and services. It has huge potential risks for individual privacy and national security and has been the subject of an extremely high profile Public Interest Litigation. Its passage as a money Bill, without any oversight from the Rajya Sabha and an opportunity for substantial debate and discussion, is a fraud on the Constitution. Whether or not the court chooses to see it that way remains to be seen.

Amber Sinha is a policy researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society.

10670 - Money bill battle erupts in Rajya Sabha - Telegraph India

Money bill battle erupts in Rajya Sabha

Basant Kumar Mohanty New Delhi, Dec. 1: Senior Congress leaders in the Rajya Sabha had a battle of words with the government and the Chair over alleged misuse of the money bill route to get bills passed in Parliament. A brief discussion on a demand for a committee to examine the use of the money bill route led to the verbal duel between the treasury benches and deputy chairman P.J. Kurien on one side and Congress leaders P. Chidambaram and Jairam Ramesh on the other. Samajwadi Party leaders Naresh Agrawal and Ramgopal Yadav had called for the committee to be set up. Opposition parties have in recent months frequently complained that the Narendra Modi regime has been taking the money bill route for ordinary bills to bypass the Rajya Sabha, where the government is in a minority. The Rajya Sabha does not have voting rights on money bills. When the Aadhaar Bill was passed as a money bill in March this year, Ramesh had objected. Finance minister Arun Jaitley had then pointed to the Lok Sabha website and cited precedents during Congress rule. Jaitley cited the African Development Bank Bill (ADB), 1983, and the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Bill, 1986, to prove his point. But Ramesh had dug out Rajya Sabha records to argue that the two bills were not money bills. Parliament's records were more authentic than the website, he said. The Aadhaar law aims at delivery of government benefits and services to people after verification of their Aadhaar number. Ramesh today raised the Aadhaar bill to accuse the government of misusing the money bill provision, drawing a sharp reaction from the treasury benches. The Congress leader made certain references against Jaitley which were expunged by Kurien. "The issue is not whether this is a money bill or that is not a money bill, but the issue is the use of the money bill route to deliberately bypass the Rajya Sabha," he said. Ramesh then targeted the Chair citing a recent ruling on the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2015, introduced in the upper House as a private member's bill by K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao. The bill seeks special status for Andhra. Every member has the right to bring a bill on any matter as a private member's bill. The government has been pleading that this bill was a money bill. The Rajya Sabha referred the bill to the Lok Sabha Speaker, who ruled that it was not a money bill. However, the Lok Sabha secretary-general had given the opinion that since the bill has a provision to establish a separate high court for Andhra, involving expenditure, hence it is a Financial Bill of Category 'A' that can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only. The bill was sent to the ministry of law and justice, which said it was Financial Bill of Category 'A'. On November 18, the Chair gave the ruling that it was a Financial Bill of Category 'A' and terminated further discussion on it. Ramesh criticised the Chair for that ruling. Led by urban development minister Venkaiah Naidu, the treasury benches criticised Ramesh for "casting aspersions" on the Chair. "This is something unheard of.... He cannot cast aspersions on the Chair," Naidu said. Chidambaram supported Ramesh and said any constitutional authority can make mistakes and that the Opposition was urging the Chair to reconsider its ruling. Kurien expunged all aspersions against the Chair. "All aspersions against the leader of the House and the Chair are expunged... nobody can question the ruling of the Chair. It is final," Kurien said. Plea to President Sixteen Opposition parties, including Trinamul and Left, today petitioned the President - as the custodian of the Constitution - to intervene and stop the stifling of the legislative process, alleging that their rights as Lok Sabha MPs were being trampled upon. The immediate provocation was the manner in which the Taxation Laws (2nd Amendment) Bill was passed on Tuesday, without discussion and prior notice to the MPs.

10597 - Govt to introduce GST legislation as Money Bill - Millenium

Govt to introduce GST legislation as Money Bill

12 November 2016, New Delhi, Dhirendra Kumar

The GST Bill is set to be introduced in the upcoming Winter Session of the Parliament, which is scheduled to begin from November 16.

Keeping in mind ‘no majority’ in Rajya Sabha, the ruling government-led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has hinted at introducing Goods and Services Tax Bill in the Parliament as Money Bill instead of Finance Bill. Clearing the stand of the government over the nature of GST Bill, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had recently said that there were no precedents of any legislation related to tax being ever introduced in the Parliament as Finance Bill, so the same will be done with GST Bill too.

The stand of the government may prove to be a huge setback for opposition parties, including Congress, which had supported the Constitutional Amendment Bill on GST in Rajya Sabha on the condition that GST Bill would be introduced in the Parliament as Finance Bill. 

Now, when the GST Bill would be introduced as Money Bill, the opposition parties would not have any say in ‘forcing’ government to make changes in it. 

As per legal procedures, Money Bill will be introduced only in Lok Sabha, where the ruling government is in majority, and Rajya Sabha cannot make any amendments to them. However, the Upper House can suggest amendments, but it is up to the Lok Sabha to accept them or reject them.

The GST Bill is set to be introduced in the upcoming Winter Session of the Parliament, which is scheduled to begin from November 16. 

The Constitutional Amendment Bill on GST was easily passed during Monsoon Session, with the Congress party coming on board, after the government made about six changes including scrapping of 1 per cent manufacturing tax and incorporating clearer provisions for the compensation of states.

Earlier, the Modi government has introduced popular Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. The reason behind introducing Aadhaar as a Money Bill was that the NDA has a majority in Lok Sabha and not in Rajya Sabha. 

10493 - Is Aadhaar’s use mandatory? - Live Mint

Is Aadhaar’s use mandatory?

Questions are being raised about its legal backing after the Supreme Court ordered a stay on the mandatory use of Aadhaar for government scholarship schemes

Apurva Viswanath

The court’s ruling once again raises questions on the extent of legal backing for Aadhaar. Photo: Priyanka Parashar/Mint

New Delhi: Just a day after the government notified the law on Aadhaar for its use in various government schemes, the Supreme Court on 14 September ordered a stay on mandatory use of Aadhaar for government scholarship schemes.

The court’s ruling once again raises questions on the extent of legal backing for Aadhaar.

A bench comprising justices V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel, on a plea by All Bengal Minority Students’ Council, issued an interim stay against making authentication through Aadhaar mandatory for Central and state scholarship schemes.

The notification issued by the University Grants Commission is not in line with the apex court’s ruling in October last year which stated that Aadhaar scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this court one way or the other.

To be sure, section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsides, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which allows for use of Aadhaar for government benefits, subsidies and services, does not make Aadhaar mandatory.

“The court is right in raising a question on whether Aadhaar is mandatory. All use of the unique identity number has to be in sync with the act which in no way says Aadhaar is mandatory,” said a Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) official, on the condition of anonymity.

Also Read: Aadhaar, eKYC, UPI to fuel innovation in fintech, says report

Separately, two contempt cases are being heard by the Supreme Court and the Delhi high court against the mandatory use of Aadhaar for scholarship schemes and public distribution system, among other things.

The government’s top law officer, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, had clarified to Mint that the law will now override such concerns.

“The earlier challenge against mandatory use was against an executive notification that conceived Aadhaar. Now, the law takes care of all concerns surrounding potential misuse.”

Consequently, the government can now use the 12-digit unique identification number for identifying beneficiaries of social welfare schemes and disbursing subsidies.

Another case challenging the passage of the Aadhaar law as a money bill is also pending in the apex court.

A money bill does not need the consent of the Rajya Sabha, where the government is in a minority.

Apurva Vishwanath

10384 - SC to hear fresh plea against making Aadhaar mandatory - Live Mint

Mon, Sep 05 2016. 05 25 PM IST

SC to hear fresh plea against making Aadhaar mandatory

Mathew Thomas, the petitioner who had earlier challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, has now filed the contempt plea in the apex court

Photo: Satish Kaushik/Mint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a fresh contempt plea against the government for allegedly making use of Aadhaar mandatory.

On 11 August 2015, the court had spelt it out that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for any government schemes and subsequently restricted the use of the unique identity number to a few schemes.

The court agreed to hear the plea against the secretary, ministry of human resources development, for making use of Aadhaar mandatory for scholarship. The petition also names many other government departments.

Mathew Thomas, the petitioner who had earlier challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, has now filed the contempt plea.

A case challenging Aadhaar on the grounds that it violates the right to privacy is already before the apex court. The case has been referred to a Constitution bench, which is yet to hear the case.

In an interim ruling in December, the court allowed use of Aadhaar for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, pension schemes of the Central and state governments and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, in addition to its use in the public distribution system (PDS) and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene subsidies.

In March, the government passed Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill as a money bill.

A challenge to passage of the law as a money bill is also being heard by the apex court.

9974 - Supreme Court decides to check Aadhaar law’s validity - Deccan Chronicle

Supreme Court decides to check Aadhaar law’s validity

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J VENKATESAN

Published

May 11, 2016, 3:47 am IST

Chidambaram said the Aadhaar law ought not to have been passed as a Money bill.

The attempt to pass it as a money bill is a colourable exercise of power.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to examine the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar law passed by Parliament as a Money Bill.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices R. Banumathi and Uday Lalit told senior counsel P. Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal appearing for Congress MP, Jairam Ramesh, who had challenged the law and sought a declaration that it is unconstitutional and not valid.

At the outset Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi for the Centre submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the decision of the Speaker to certify a particular Bill as a ‘Money Bill’ is not subject to judicial review.

He said there are a number of judgments which hold that the Speaker’s decision in this regard is final. Mr Chidambaram, however, said the Aadhaar law ought not to have been passed as a Money bill.

The attempt to pass it as  a money bill is a colourable exercise of power. When the CJI wanted to know as it what manner the fundamental rights of the petitioner has been affected, Mr Chidambaram said when Parliament violates rule of law and there is gross transgression, the court can interfere.

Counsel submitted that both LS and RS are equal. The Bench asked Mr Chidambaram and the AG to give a brief note of their submissions.

9970 - Aadhaar Bill: Centre opposes Jairam Ramesh PIL in SC - Indian Express

Aadhaar Bill: Centre opposes Jairam Ramesh PIL in SC

He also objected to the PIL on the ground that there was no violation of any fundamental right of the Congress leader and hence a writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable.

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. (Express photo)

MAINTAINING THAT the Speaker’s decision was not amenable to judicial review, the central government Tuesday opposed a PIL filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, who has challenged the decision to treat Aadhaar Bill as a money Bill. The Bill was passed during the Budget session in March after overruling the amendments moved in the Rajya Sabha.

Defending the Speaker’s decision, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a bench led by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur that Ramesh’s petition could not be entertained since the Speaker’s views on whether or not to treat a Bill as money Bill was not open to judicial reviews and that there was a complete immunity to such proceedings inside Parliament.

He also objected to the PIL on the ground that there was no violation of any fundamental right of the Congress leader and hence a writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable.

RELATED ARTICLE

• Congress attacks PM Modi on RS failure to pass afforestation bill
• Congress leader Jairam’s plea on Aadhaar Bill: Supreme Court seeks AG’s view
• Name Of The Bill
• Jairam Ramesh moves SC against Centre treating Aadhaar Bill as money Bill
• Aadhaar Bill debate: Jairam Ramesh disproves Arun Jaitley claim
• Aadhaar bill is through after Opposition scores a few brownie points
• Congress attacks PM Modi on RS failure to pass afforestation bill
• Congress leader Jairam’s plea on Aadhaar Bill: Supreme Court seeks AG’s view
• Name Of The Bill
• Jairam Ramesh moves SC against Centre treating Aadhaar Bill as money Bill
• Aadhaar Bill debate: Jairam Ramesh disproves Arun Jaitley claim
• Aadhaar bill is through after Opposition scores a few brownie points
• Congress attacks PM Modi on RS failure to pass afforestation bill
• Congress leader Jairam’s plea on Aadhaar Bill: Supreme Court seeks AG’s view
• Name Of The Bill
• Jairam Ramesh moves SC against Centre treating Aadhaar Bill as money Bill
• Aadhaar Bill debate: Jairam Ramesh disproves Arun Jaitley claim
• Aadhaar bill is through after Opposition scores a few brownie points

Countering the submissions, Ramesh’s counsel P Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal argued that the issues involved were too serious to be thrown out on the mere ground that the petition was not maintainable under Article 32. “The court should consider whether this is a money Bill and lay down guidelines on what should be a money Bill or not,” Chidambaram said.

At this, the bench sought to know from them why this matter could not be heard by the Delhi High Court but Chidambaram said that the apex court should decide the issues once and for all.

The bench then asked Ramesh’s counsel to submit a note of their submissions and case laws and adjourned the hearing for July.

Ramesh had moved the court against the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, calling it unconstitutional. Once the Lok Sabha passes a money Bill with or without amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha, it is deemed to have been passed by both the Houses. It is generally believed that Speaker’s discretion is final in the matter.

But in his petition, Ramesh said that Aadhaar cannot be a money Bill under the constitutional provisions since the Act contains a substantial number of provisions that do not pertain to matters described as admissible under a money Bill. He added that the introduction of the Aadhaar Act as a money Bill was a brazen and malafide attempt to bypass the approval of the Rajya Sabha, which holds an important place in the Constitutional and democratic framework of law-making.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/aadhaar-bill-centre-opposes-jairam-ramesh-pil-in-supreme-court-2794247/#sthash.Djr9jWU5.dpuf

9960 - Jairam Ramesh calls Aadhaar bill unconstitutional, moves SC - Money Control

Jairam Ramesh calls Aadhaar bill unconstitutional, moves SC 

Jairam Ramesh, former union minister, has moved the Supreme Court against the Aadhaar bill, calling it unconstitutional and accused the government of circumventing the Parliamentary process.

Ashmit Kumar (more) Reporter, CNBC-TV18 |

The government has been facing a lot of heat for introducing the Aadhaar bill as a money bill in Parliament. It has decided to go on the offensive, arguing that the Lok Sabha speaker has the prerogative of accepting the bill in any form that she deems fit. 

Jairam Ramesh, former union minister, has moved the Supreme Court against the Aadhaar bill, calling it unconstitutional and accused the government of circumventing the Parliamentary process. Supporting the bill, the Center told the Supreme Court that the certification by the Lok Sabha speaker is immune to judicial challenge. 

CNBC-TV18’s Ashmit Kumar reports that the apex court will hear both sides of the argument on the passing of Aadhaar Act and has kept the next hearing in July. Watch video for more.

Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/jairam-ramesh-calls-aadhaar-bill-unconstitutional-moves-sc_6605841.html?utm_source=ref_article

9959 - Centre opposes in Supreme Court Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar Bill- Economic Times

Centre opposes in Supreme Court Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar Bill

By PTI | 10 May, 2016, 08.51PM IST

P Chidambaram, appearing for Ramesh, submitted that when there was a violation of rule of law, "locus is not the ground on which the petition can be thrown out."

NEW DELHI: The Centre today opposed the petition filed by senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh questioning the decision to treat Aadhaar Bill as a money bill saying that the constitutional provision bars him from challenging it. 

"Under the Constitution, it is a settled position that money bill certified by the Speaker is beyond challenge," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur which had sought his assistance. 

However, senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for Ramesh, submitted that when there was a violation of rule of law, "locus is not the ground on which the petition can be thrown out." 

When the bench, also comprising Justices R Banumathi and U U Lalit, wanted to know "if it (treating Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill) is open to judicial review", the Attorney General said there was no violation of fundamental right of Ramesh so the petition filed by him under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. 

Chidambaram responded by saying that there was violation of rule of law which forms basic structure of the Constitution and as such the petition needed to be entertained. 

He said Aadhaar Bill cannot be treated as Money Bill so the petition has been filed under Article 32. 

The senior Congress leader informed the bench that the Bill had its passage in the Lok Sabha through voice vote but the Rajya Sabha Chairman before whom the complaint was made said he has no power to act on the Bill certified by the Lok Sabha Speaker. 

The bench, which noted his submission that it was a grave matter and needs proper hearing, posted for third week of July. 

The apex court had on April 25 sought the assistance of the AG but did not issue notice on the plea of Ramesh. 

Lok Sabha had on March 16 passed the Aadhaar bill that aims at better targeting of subsidies through the Aadhaar unique identity. 

The House had earlier adopted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, by a voice vote after rejecting recommendations for five amendments made by the Upper House.

9958 - Is the Aadhaar Bill a Money Bill? - The Hindu

Is the Aadhaar Bill a Money Bill?

Updated: May 10, 2016 17:17 IST | Sruthi Radhakrishnan

The introduction of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill caused uproar in both Houses of Parliament. | The Hindu

We take look at what a Money Bill is and why the government has pushed the Aadhaar Bill through it.

What is a Money Bill?

A Money Bill is one that contains provisions for taxes, appropriation of funds etc. Money Bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha cannot make amendments to such bills passed by the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can suggest amendments, but it is the Lok Sabha’s choice to accept or reject them.

How is Aadhaar connected?

The NDA government chose to introduce the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 as a Money Bill. The Lok Sabha cleared the Bill and passed it to the Rajya Sabha.

While the NDA has a majority in the Lok Sabha, it does not in the Rajya Sabha. This led to intense debates in the Upper House, led by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. The House recommended several amendments to the Bill, which was passed with a majority in the House.

What was the Opposition about?

The Opposition’s main concern was with the usage of Aadhaar data to facilitate mass surveillance. Originally, the Aadhaar project was supposed to be voluntary, but this Bill makes enrolment compuslory. The Bill contains a blanket ‘national security’ clause, a clause bound to induce misuse.

What happened next?

Parliament passed the Aadhaar Bill, even as debates raged in both Houses. “I am questioning the competence of this House to legislate the Bill,” Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) said, arguing that the Bill was also being considered by the Supreme Court and was beyond “the legislative authority” of the House.

What now?

Mr. Ramesh then moved the Supreme Court challenging the treatment of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. Earlier, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who moved the Bill and piloted them in both the Houses, had turned down the Opposition argument that Parliament cannot legislate as the matter is before the Supreme Court.

9951 - Aadhaar Act as Money Bill: Why the Lok Sabha isn’t Immune from Judicial Review - The Wire

Aadhaar Act as Money Bill: Why the Lok Sabha isn’t Immune from Judicial Review

BY VANYA RAKESH AND SUMANDRO CHATTAPADHYAY ON 09/05/2016 • 

The Supreme Court can not only review the decision by the Lok Sabha speaker, but should also ask the government to draft the Aadhaar Bill again, with greater parliamentary and public deliberations.

File photo of parliament. Credit: PTI

The Aadhaar Act 2016, passed in the Lok Sabha on March 16, 2016, faced opposition ever since it was tabled in parliament. In particular, the move to introduce it as a money bill has been vehemently challenged on grounds of this being an attempt to bypass the Rajya Sabha completely. A writ petition has been filed by former Union minister Jairam Ramesh on April 6 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the treatment of this Act as a money bill. The Supreme Court heard the matter on April 25 and invited the Union government to present its view.

It is our view that the Supreme Court can not only review the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision, but should also ask the government to draft the Aadhaar Bill again, this time with greater parliamentary and public deliberation.

The money bill question

M.R. Madhavan has argued that the Aadhaar Act contains matters other than “only” those incidental to expenditure from the consolidated fund, as it establishes a biometrics-based unique identification number for beneficiaries of government services and benefits, but also allows the number to be used for other purposes beyond service delivery. While Pratap Bhanu Mehta calls this a subversion of “the spirit of the constitution”, P.D.T. Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, expressed concern about the attempts to pass off financial bills like Aadhaar as money bills as a means to circumvent and erode the supervisory role of the Rajya Sabha. Arvind Datar has further emphasised that when the primary purpose of a bill is not governed by Article 110(1), then certifying it as a money bill is an unconstitutional act.

Article 110(1) of the Constitution identifies a bill as a money bill if it contains “only” provisions dealing with the following matters, or those incidental to them:

1. imposition and regulation of any tax,
2. financial obligations undertaken by Indian Government,
3. payment into or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or Contingent Fund of India,
4. appropriation of money and expenditure charged on the CFI or receipt, and
5. custody, issue or audit of money into CFI or public account of India.

However, the link of the Act with the Consolidated Fund of India is rather tenuous, since it depends on the Union or state governments declaring a certain subsidy to be available upon verification of the Aadhaar number. The objectives and validity of the Act would not actually change if the Aadhaar number no longer was directly connected to the delivery of services. The use of the word “if” in section 7 explicitly leaves scope for a situation where the government does not declare an Aadhaar verification as necessary for accessing a subsidy. In such a scenario, the Act will still be valid but without any formal connection with any charges on the Consolidated Fund of India.

A case of procedural irregularity?

The constitution of India borrows the idea of providing the speaker with the authority to certify a bill as money bill from British law, but operationalises it differently. In the UK, though the speaker’s certificate on a money bill is conclusive for all purposes under section 3 of the Parliament Act 1911, the speaker is required to consult two senior members, usually one from either side of the house, appointed by the committee from amongst those senior MPs who chair general committees. In India, the speaker makes the decision on her own.

Although article 110 (3) of the Indian constitution states that the decision of the speaker of the Lok Sabha shall be final in case a question arises regarding whether a bill is a money bill or not, this does not restrict the Supreme Court from entertaining and hearing a petition contesting the speaker’s decision. As the Aadhaar Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha as a money bill even though it does not meet the necessary criteria for such a classification, this treatment of the bill may be considered as an instance of procedural irregularity.

There is ample jurisprudence on what happens when the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review comes up against Article 122 – which states that the validity of any proceeding in the parliament can (only) be called into question on the grounds of procedural irregularities. In the crucial judgment of Raja Ram Pal vs Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others (2007), the court evaluated the scope of judicial review and observed that although parliament is supreme, unlike Britain, proceedings which are found to suffer from substantive illegality or unconstitutionality, cannot be held protected from judicial scrutiny by article 122, as opposed to mere irregularity. Deciding upon the scope for judicial intervention in respect of exercise of power by the speaker, in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu & Ors. (1992), the Supreme Court held that though the speaker of the house holds a pivotal position in a parliamentary democracy, the decision of the speaker (while adjudicating on disputed disqualification) is subject to judicial review that may look into the correctness of the decision.

Several past decisions of the Supreme Court discuss how the tests of legality and constitutionality help decide whether parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review or not. In Ramdas Athawale vs Union of India (2010), the case of Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1964) was referred to, in which the judges had unequivocally upheld the judiciary’s power to scrutinise the actions of the speaker and the houses. It was observed that if the parliamentary procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to scrutiny in a court of law and could be a ground for interference by courts under Article 32, though the immunity from judicial interference under this article is confined to matters of irregularity of procedure. These observations were reiterated in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs State of Bihar (2016).

Thus, the decision of the Lok Sabha speaker to pass and certify a bill as a money bill is definitely not immune from judicial review. Additionally, the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcement of rights under Article 32 of the constitution, therefore, allowing the judiciary to decide upon the manner of introducing the Aadhaar Act in parliament.

National implications demand public deliberation

As the provisions of the Aadhaar Act have far reaching implications for the fundamental and constitutional rights of Indian citizens, the Supreme Court should look into the matter of its identification and treatment as a money bill and whether such decisions lead to the thwarting of legislative and procedural justice.

The Supreme Court may also take this opportunity to reflect on the very decision making process for classification of bills in general. As Smarika Kumar argues, experience with the Aadhaar Act reveals a structural concern regarding this classification process, which may have substantial implications in terms of undermining public and parliamentary deliberative processes. This “trend,” as Arvind Datar notes, of limiting legislative discussions and decisions of national importance within the space of the Lok Sabha must be swiftly curtailed.

Apart from deciding upon the legality of the nature of the bill, it is vital that the apex court ask the government to categorically respond to the concerns red-flagged by the Standing Committee on Finance, which had taken great exception to the continued collection of data and issuance of Aadhaar numbers in its report, and to the recommendations passed in the Rajya Sabha recently. Further, the repeated violation of the Supreme Court’s interim orders – that the Aadhaar number cannot be made mandatory for availing benefits and services – in contexts ranging from marriages to the guaranteed work programme should also be addressed and responses sought from the Union government.

Evidently, the substantial implications of the Aadhaar Act for national security and fundamental rights of citizens, primarily privacy and data security, make it imperative to conduct a duly balanced public deliberation process, both within and outside the houses of parliament, before enacting such a legislation.

Vanya Rakesh and Sumandro Chattapadhyay work with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.