11025 - Congress says Aadhaar an ‘instrument of exclusion’, likens seeding to sterilisation during Emergency - Indin Express

Congress says Aadhaar an ‘instrument of exclusion’, likens seeding to sterilisation during Emergency

BJP MP Vinay Sahasrabuddhe credited former deputy PM L K Advani for having conceptualised Aadhaar.

Written by Abantika Ghosh | New Delhi | Updated: April 11, 2017 8:38 am

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said: “What sterilisation was to the Emergency, Aadhaar seeding is becoming to your government. It is a target-oriented approach, 100 per cent seeding in every programme.”

Roles were reversed in Rajya Sabha Monday with the progenitors of Aadhaar turning its critics and those who had slammed the concept defending it during a short duration discussion. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, who by his own admission was present at the conception of Aadhaar, called it an “instrument of exclusion” and drew parallels with the NDA;s implementation of that concept to the sterilisation drive during emergency. “What sterilisation was to the Emergency, Aadhaar seeding is becoming to your government. It is a target-oriented approach, 100 per cent seeding in every programme,” Ramesh said while giving examples from PDS and old-age pension to show how people were being denied their entitlements for lack of Aadhar. “I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” he said.

While Opposition MPs quoted then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi’s statements against Aadhaar, including a commitment at an election rally in April 2014 to scrap it should he become prime minister, treasury benches including IT minister Ravishankar Prasad tried to dismiss that opposition as one stemming from the lack of statutory backing for Aadhaar in the UPA era.

Prasad, however, did not shy away from crediting the Congress for having envisaged Aadhar. “Some of my friends in the Congress are repeatedly trying to paint Aadhaar as the biggest curse to have happened for the country. Sorry, don’t do that. You have created it and we compliment you,” Prasad said.

He refuted Opposition allegations that the present mode of implementation of Aadhar violates the orders of the Supreme Court and assured the House not just of the safety of Aadhaar data but also that no poor person would be deprived of their entitlements for not having an Aadhaar. He also said 32,000 private companies have been blacklisted in the interest of data protection.

BJP MP Vinay Sahasrabuddhe credited former deputy PM L K Advani for having conceptualised Aadhaar; Ramesh told him what Advani had envisaged was a proof of citizenship and not one of identity.

Trinamool leader Derek O’Brien said: “Don’t get me wrong; we are all for Aadhaar. But, in implementation of Aadhaar, we have some serious issues. As I said, privacy may be a middle class or an upper middle class perception issue. Sir, it is not; it is an issue which hurt the marginalised.”

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

10284 - Govt faces opposition flak in RS over Aadhaar-linked sops - TNN

Govt faces opposition flak in RS over Aadhaar-linked sops

TNN | Jul 29, 2016, 06.37 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha had to be adjourned thrice in the pre-lunch session on Thursday amid an uproar as the opposition targeted the government, alleging people were being denied essential benefits, including subsidised LPG and pensions, for not having Aadhaar card. 

MPs from SP, TMC and BJD had given a notice for discussion on the issue and demanded it be taken up when the House assembled in the morning. They were supported by Left and Congress MPs who said the Centre was acting against the interests of the poor by making Aadhaar mandatory . 

Opposition MPs continued to raise slogans in the well of the House even as the government assured instructions had already been given to ensure that Aadhaar was not made mandatory for availing benefits. 

SP's Ram Gopal Yadav said the Centre has told states to stop ration card benefits, pensions and subsidi sed LPG to those not having Aadhaar card. He said as many as 40% of the population still did not have Aadhaar card. Derek O'Brien of TMC said the BJP-led government talked of cooperative federalism but took decisions without discussing with states.

Urban development minister Venkaiah Naidu said the Act provided that government benefits could be availed through Aadhaar cards. "It (Aadhaar card) is not compulsory . If necessary, instructions will be issued," he said.

Direct Benefit Transfer -the scheme of paying government benefits directly to users -was started by the previous UPA government, he said, adding that DBT was the need of the hour as it helped eliminate corruption, middlemen and leakages.

Naidu said Aadhaar would not be made mandatory till the entire population got the UID number.

Petroleum minister Dharmendra Pradhan said people who have not got Aadhaar have been asked to get them in the next three months after which their LPG subsidy would be "parked" separately . "It is not being cut," he said, adding that 85% of the population had got Aadhaar cards

10279 - Opposition forces Rajya Sabha adjournment protesting Aadhaar-linked benefits - Economic Times

Opposition forces Rajya Sabha adjournment protesting Aadhaar-linked benefits

By PTI | Jul 28, 2016, 01.11 PM IST

The House was first adjourned till noon, then for about 15 minutes and once again till 2 PM as the Opposition uproar continued unabated.

NEW DELHI: A united opposition today disrupted Rajya Sabha proceedings protesting against making Aadhaar card mandatory for availing government benefits like subsidised LPG, PDS supplies and pensions, forcing its adjournment thrice since morning. 

The House was first adjourned till noon, then for about 15 minutes and once again till 2 PM as the Opposition uproar continued unabated. 

Opposition TMC, BJD and SP had given notices for suspension of business to take up the issue which also found support from the Left parties and the Congress. The notices were rejected by the Chair. 

While the government clarified that the unique identification number (UID) or Aadhaar card issued to citizens was not mandatory for availing government benefits and necessary instruction to this effect were being issued, dissatisfied opposition members trooped into the Well raising slogans, forcing adjournment of proceedings till noon. 

Soon after the House assembled and listed papers laid, Naresh Agarwal (SP), Derek O'Brien (TMC) and Dilip Tirkey (BJD) said they had given notices under rule 267, but Deputy Chairman P J Kurien said their motion has not been permitted. 

Ram Gopal Yadav (SP) said the Centre has issued instructions to state governments to stop ration card benefits, pensions and subsidised LPG to those not having Aadhaar card. 

As much as 40 per cent of the population do not have Aadhaar card and the move will hit the poor hard, he said. 

Derek O'Brien said the BJP-led government talks of cooperative federalism but takes decisions without discussing with states. Making Aadhaar mandatory will have serious repurcusions across the country, he said. 

Tirkey (BJD) said with 20 per cent of the population in Odisha do not have Aadhaar card, the instruction by the Centre will only create problems for the poor. 

In his response, Minister for Urban Development M Venkaiah Naidu said the Act passed by Parliament provides that government benefits can be availed through Aadhaar cards. 

The government, he said, has taken note of the concerns raised by members. "It (Aadhaar card) is not compulsory. If necessary, necessary instructions will be issued," he said. 

The Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) - the scheme of paying government benefits directly to users, was started by the previous UPA government, he said, adding "DBT is need of the hour" as it helps eliminate corruption, middlemen and leakages. 

Observing that Aadhaar will not be made mandatory till the entire population gets such cards or UID numbers, he said "I will ensure necessary clarification is issued at the earliest." 

Petroleum Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said people who have not got Aadhaar have been asked to get them in next three months after which their LPG subsidy will be "parked" separately. "It is not being cut," he said. 

Stating that 85 per cent population have got Aadhaar card, Pradhan said the penetration can be pushed only with the effort of the state government. 

Sharad Yadav (JD-U) said decisions impacting poor should be taken with utmost sensitivity. 

Observing that DBT is not just about having Aadhaar card but the benefit has to go into bank accounts of beneficiaries, Tapan Kumar Sen (CPI-M) said the issue is linked to opening accounts and bank branches. 

Naresh Agarwal (SP) said the Centre has sent three departmental orders asking state governments to stop supply under public distribution system (PDS) to those ration card holders not having Aadhaar card, terminate their pension and subsidised LPG to those not having these cards. 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy (TMC) asked if the government was aware of the October 2015 order of the Supreme Court that Aadhaar should be voluntary and not compulsory. 

While the Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act grants exemption to those who have applied for Aadhaar but not got it yet, will the same exemption apply to a person who has failed to apply for the card due to ignorance or poverty, he asked. 

Rajeev Shukla (Cong) said 68 per cent of the population were issued Aadhaar cards when the UPA was in power but the process has slowed down during two years of NDA rule. Till the cards are issued, people should not be deprived of benefits, he said. 

Naidu said the process of issuing Aadhaar cards has to be hastened. Till now 100 crore Aadhaar cards have been issued and some remain. The process of issue of Aadhaar to those left out has to be completed early. "We will do it," he said. 

But the members were not satisfied and trooped in to the Well of the House raising anti-government slogans. 

Deputy Chairman P J Kurien termed the situation as very unfortunate and said "You (opposition) raised relevant points. Minister responded. Now what is the need for this obstruction. This is unfair." 

In the din, Pradhan said exemption for Aadhaar based transfer of benefits was given to Assam and a similar request of Mizoram, where only 55 per cent have got Aadhaar cards, is under consideration. He also alleged that a group of middlemen was against issue of Aadhaar cards to all beneficiaries. 

As the members continued to shout slogans from the Well, Kurien asked them to return to their places. 

"It is very wrong on part of members to do this," he said. "If you want a discussion, there is no problem, give notice. Shouting your slogans will not serve any purpose. I this it is not justified," he said before adjourning the proceedings till noon. 

When the House reassembled at noon, the Question Hour also became a casuality as the opposition members continued to protest over making of Aadhar card compulsory to avail various benefits. 

Despite pleas by Chairman Hamid Ansari for maintaining decorum and allowing the Question Hour to function, the members of Congress, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party and JD-U came entered the Well shouting slogans like "Aadhaar card compulsory karna band karo" (stop making Aadhaar compulsory) and "Bina aadhar wale ko bhi allow karo" (allow those not having these cards) and "Ye sarkar nikammi hai" (this government is useless). 

Naidu also said this was "unfair" as he has already given an assurance to the House in this regard and the matter has been discussed already. 

The House was then adjourned for about 15 minutes. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was present in the House when the opposition created uproar. 

Asking the members to not raise slogans in the House and return to their seats, Ansari said "this is unfair. Please go back to your seats. Why are you doing this? These questions are yours." 

As opposition members continued to raise slogans and uproar, Ansari then adjourned the House till 2 PM.

9884 - The Aadhaar Act is Not a Money Bill - The Wire

The Aadhaar Act is Not a Money Bill

BY AMBER SINHA ON 24/04/2016 • 

While the authority of the Lok Sabha Speaker is final and binding, Jairam Ramesh’s writ petition may allow the Supreme Court to question an incorrect application of substantive principles.

Passing off the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill could erode the Rajya Sabha’s supervisory role. 

Credit: D J Singh, Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Since its introduction as a money bill in the Lok Sabha in the first week of March, the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Bill, 2016 has been embroiled in controversy. The Lok Sabha rejected the five recommendations of the Rajya Sabha and adopted the bill on March 16 and only presidential assent was required for it become to become valid law. However, former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh filed a writ petition contesting the decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill. The petition is due to be heard before the Supreme Court on April 25, and should the court decide to entertain the petition, it could have far-reaching implications for the Aadhaar project and the manner in which money bills are passed by the Parliament.

There are three broad categories of bills (all legislations or Acts are known as ‘bills’ till they are passed by the Parliament) that the Parliament can pass. The first kind, Constitution Amendment Bills, are those that seek to amend a provision in the Constitution of India. The second are financial bills which contain provisions on matters of taxation and expenditure. Money bills are a subset of the financial bills which contain provisions only related to taxation, financial obligations of the government, expenditure from or receipt to the Consolidated Fund of India and any matters incidental to the above. The third category is of ordinary bills which includes all other bills. The process for the enactment of all these bills is different. Money bills are peculiar in that they can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha where it can be passed by simple majority. Following this, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha’s powers are restricted to giving recommendations on the Bill and sending it back to the Lok Sabha, which the Lok Sabha is under no obligation to accept. The decision to introduce the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill has been widely seen as an attempt to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where the ruling party is in a minority.

Article 110 (1) of the Constitution defines a money bill as one containing provisions only regarding the matters enumerated or any matters incidental to them. These are 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. Article 110 is modelled on Section 1(2) of the (UK) Parliament Act, 1911 which also defines the 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 of 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.

While the Aadhaar Bill does make references to benefits, subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India (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. 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.

PDT Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, has expressed concern about the use of Money Bills as a means to circumvent the Rajya Sabha. He has written here and here, on what constitutes a money bill and how the attempts to pass off financial bills like the Aadhaar Bill as money bills could erode the supervisory role Rajya Sabha is supposed to play. This is especially true in the case of a legislation like the Aadhaar Bill which has far reaching implications for individual privacy as it governs the identification system conceptualised to provide a unique and lifelong identity to residents of India dealing with both the analog and digital machinery of the state and by virtue of Section 57 of any private entities. Already over 1 billion people have been enrolled under this identification scheme, and the project has been a subject of much debate and a petition before the Supreme Court. The project has been portrayed as both the last hope for a welfare state and  surveillance infrastructure. Regardless of which of the two ends of spectrum one leans towards, it is undeniable that the law governing the Aadhaar project deserved a proper debate in the Parliament. Even those who are strong proponents of the project must accept the decision to pass it off as a money bill undermines the importance of democratic processes and is a travesty on the Constitution and a blatant abrogation of the constitutional duties of the speaker.

The petition by Jairam Ramesh would hinge largely on the powers of the judiciary to question the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 110 (3) is very clear in pronouncing the authority of the Speaker as final and binding. Additionally, Article 122 prohibits the courts from questioning the validity of any proceedings in Parliament on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The powers of privilege that Parliamentarians enjoy are integral to the principle of separation of powers. However, the courts may be able to make a fine distinction between inquiring into procedural irregularity which is prohibited by the Constitution; and questioning an incorrect application of substantive principles, which I would argue, is the case with the Speaker decision.

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

9882 - Supreme Court to hear Congress petition against Aadhaar Bill next month - India Today

Supreme Court to hear Congress petition against Aadhaar Bill next month

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 was passed by a voice vote earlier this year after the Lok Sabha rejected all the five amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha, where the BJP is in a minority.

IndiaToday.in  | Posted by Avarnita Mathur

New Delhi, April 25, 2016 | UPDATED 14:22 IST

The Supreme Court will hear next month a petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the "unconstitutional" passage of the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill.

Seeking the assistance of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi in the matter, the apex court has fixed May 6 as the date for the hearing.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 was passed by a voice vote earlier this year after the Lok Sabha rejected all the five amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha, where the BJP is in a minority.

A money bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha cannot make amendments in a money bill passed by the Lok Sabha.

The Congress and other opposition parties had made a strong pitch against the overall nature of the bill in the Rajya Sabha, even as Finance Minister Arun Jaitley sought to allay their apprehensions concerning the bill.

9775 - Congress moves Supreme Court against Aadhaar Bill - The Hindu

NEW DELHI, April 8, 2016

Congress moves Supreme Court against Aadhaar Bill

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

The controversy now takes a new twist as it is generally believed that the Speaker’s discretion is final in the matter.

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Thursday said he had challenged the Aadhaar Bill in the Supreme Court, seeking to block its implementation unless it was cleared by the Rajya Sabha.

Since Finance Minister Arun Jaitley introduced the Aadhaar Bill as a money Bill in the last session of Parliament, the Opposition parties could not challenge it in the Rajya Sabha.

“It is important because declaring the Aadhaar Bill as money Bill violates Article 110 of the Constitution and has grave implications for the future of Rajya Sabha itself,” Mr. Ramesh told The Hindu. “I believe we have an iron clad case. This has relevance to the future of the Rajya Sabha itself and that is why I took this step after a great deal of consideration and consultation.”

The Congress’s move in the Supreme Court opens a new debate that whether or not a money Bill can be challenged on legal grounds. Usually, if the Speaker in Parliament recognises any particular Bill as money Bill, the decision is considered indisputable, and the Bill is passed even if it is facing criticism from the Opposition parties.

Accusing the NDA government of showing “utter contempt” towards the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Ramesh said that in order to avoid discussion over the drawbacks of the Aadhaar Bill, Mr. Jaitley dodged the Upper House scrutiny by tabling it as a money Bill.

Back then, Congress leaders in the Rajya Sabha recommended five amendments to the Bill but the Lok Sabha on March 16 brushed them aside and went ahead to pass the Bill.

Though Aadhaar, a biometric identification system that aims to weed out corruption and malpractices in distribution of government subsidies was the UPA-led government’s initiative, Mr. Ramesh urged a caution that certain clauses in the Bill could harm personal freedom as it gave “sweeping powers” to the government on the grounds of national security.

Mr. Ramesh said it was unclear how much power the Aadhaar authorities would have when it came to data collection.

9606 - Modi govt showed utter contempt of RS to pass Aadhaar bill: Congress - Hindustan Times

Modi govt showed utter contempt of RS to pass Aadhaar bill: Congress

• PTI, New Delhi |  Updated: Mar 19, 2016 00:51 IST

Congress MP Jairam Ramesh speaks in the Rajya Sabha in New Delhi on Friday. (PTI)

The Congress on Friday accused the NDA government of showing “utter contempt” of Rajya Sabha for taking the money bill route to pass the Aadhaar bill, indicating that the matter could be challenged by “others” in the courts.

“This is a very dangerous trend. The government has taken this to bypass the Rajya Sabha. This is an assault on the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha are two equal wheels of the same chariot of Indian democracy, if one of the wheel does not run, it will hamper democracy,” Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh said in New Delhi.

Insisting that a series of conditions are specified in Article 110 and that Article 110 uses the word “only” if those conditions are prevalent can a bill be declared a Money Bill, Ramesh said that the Aadhaar Bill, which was passed as a money bill “ignored five recommendations made by the Rajya Sabha had many other provisions.

“It had many other provisions and most constitutional experts have given the view that the Aadhaar Bill is not a Money Bill. While the prerogative of declaring a bill as a Money Bill or not is that of the Speaker and the Speaker’s decision is final but the recommendation to the Speaker to consider making it a Money Bill is that of the government.

“It is the government that decides whether it is a Money Bill or not and the Speaker only certifies it as Money Bill,” Ramesh said.

“The two examples that the Finance Minister gave, that they were declared Money Bills in the past, were wrong. They were not Money Bills. The Juvenile Justice Bill of 1986 and the African Development Bank Bill of 1983 which the finance minister used to justify the Aadhaar Bill being the Money Bill, turned down to be completely erroneous and false,” he said.

To repeated questions on whether Congress will challenge the passage of Aadhar bill as Money bill in Supreme Court, Ramesh evaded a direct reply saying “we have not heard the last on the Money Bill issue. I don’t think that you have heard the last on the Money Bill debate. The Money Bill debate will continue.”

He said there is a petition already before a five judge bench of the Supreme Court which has not yet given its final verdict.

“So, I am sure, there will be others who will take this issue but as far as we are concerned, we go by the Article 110. The Speaker’s decision is final. The Speaker has declared it is a Money Bill, it came as Money Bill, it was discussed as Money Bill, it was recommended as a Money Bill and finally passed as Money Bill and we cannot undo the history.”

9605 - Bypassing Rajya Sabha to introduce Aadhaar bill a dangerous trend: Cong - Hindustan Times

Bypassing Rajya Sabha to introduce Aadhaar bill a dangerous trend: Cong

• IANS, New Delhi |  Updated: Mar 19, 2016 10:51 IST

Congress MP Jairam Ramesh has said that government’s decision to bypass Rajya Sabha to introduce Aadhaar bill is a dengerous trend. (PTI File Photo)

The Congress has said that the government’s stance to introduce Aadhaar bill as money bill to bypass Rajya Sabha is a dangerous trend.

“I think this is a very dangerous trend. The government has taken this to bypass the Rajya Sabha. This is an assault on the upper house of Parliament. The Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha are two equal wheels of the same chariot of Indian democracy,” said party leader Jairam Ramesh, noting several senior ministers in the government were from the Rajya Sabha.

He said Congress had “adequate grounds” to believe that Aadhaar bill was not a money bill.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, was passed by Parliament in the budget session after amendments suggested by Rajya Sabha were rejected by the Lok Sabha.

Party leader Anand Sharma, who also interacted with the media, accused the the government of lack of coordination ahead of the visit of a joint investigation team from Pakistan to probe the terror attack in Pathankot.

9602 - We played constructive role to pass bills: Congress - Asian Age

We played constructive role to pass bills: Congress

• • Mar 18, 2016 | Age Correspondent | New Delh

Taking full credit for the passage of several bills in the first part of the Budget Session of Parliament due to its “constructive role”, the main Opposition Congress on Thursday cautioned the government not to weaken the Rajya Sabha mainly because the NDA lacks a majority in the Upper House.

While thanking the CPI, CPI(M) and JD(U) for voting on its amendments to the Aadhaar Bill in the Upper House, it asked why the Prime Minister does not speak in Parliament about his foreign visits. This has never happened in the past, it said.

Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad and senior Congress leader M. Veerappa Moily raised these issues and the Congress’ performance in the two Houses of Parliament at a joint press conference here.

Cautioning the government not to bypass or ignore the RS in the passage of bills simple because the BJP-led front lacks majority, Mr Azad said even the Congress did not have a majority in the RS during the tenure of Indira Gandhi but it did not bypass the Upper House. Weakening the RS is anti-democratic, he said.

Seeking to take credit for the passage of several bills, Mr Moily said, “RS functioned at 129 per cent of the scheduled time and Lok Sabha at 120 per cent. This is in contrast to the performance of the Opposition led by the BJP during UPA-2, when the House wasn’t allowed to function.”

Mr Azad said it was on the insistence of the Congress, and not the government, that there were extra sittings of Parliament. “Without the cooperation of Congress, no legislation would have been passed in the Rajya Sabha,” he said.

Mr Azad insisted that the amendments passed in the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address and the Aadhaar Bill had sent a “strong message” to the government to “not take the Rajya Sabha lightly”.

He claimed the PM had refused to answer “any of the issues” raised by the Opposition, including the Pathankot terror attack, farmers suffering due to unseasonal rains, black money, and the Vijay Mallya issue. “Sadly, the Prime Minister did not respond to any of these questions.”

Attacking the government on its claim of streamlining defence purchases, Mr Azad said, “The government didn’t streamline defence procurement but ended it.” Citing an example, he said that when the UPA was in power it was decided to go in for 126 Rafale fighter jets with the deal including transfer of technology from France. “We were to receive 18 jets and 108 jets were to be manufactured by HAL. This was Make in India. But the PM and his new government scrapped the deal. Instead they decided to buy 36 ready-made jets,” he said.

Noting that this deal was set to be signed during the Republic Day visit of French President Francois Hollande, he said it has been three months and there is still “no deal”.

9599 - Regional players focus on states, not ideology - Asian Age

Regional players focus on states, not ideology

• • Mar 18, 2016 | Age Correspondent | New Delh

Regional parties are giving conflicting signals to the main Opposition Congress and the ruling BJP, suggesting that their priority is to keep their space in the states intact rather than take ideological positions. This was seen in the first part of the Budget Session of Parliament which gave over on Thursday.

While the Congress, Left, JD(U) and DMK remained intact against the government, the AIADMK, BJD, Trinamul Congress, Samajwadi Party, BSP and NCP took a line convenient to them. And the AAP has become the common target of the BJP and the Congress.

The AIADMK and the BJD have been consistent in maintaining distance from the Congress ever since the NDA came to power at the Centre in 2014, but the Jayalalithaa-led party is opposing the GST Bill. On the other hand, the BJD remained with the Opposition on the Aadhaar bill for some time.

The Samajwadi Party and the BSP, which had backed the Manmohan Singh government for nearly 10 years unconditionally — from 2004 to 2014 — are not bitter towards the Narendra Modi government except on issues of OBCs. Although they support the GST Bill, their priority is to protect their space in Uttar Pradesh and check the BJP and Congress from making inroads into their support base.

The Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamul Congress is distancing itself from the Sonia Gandhi-led party after remaining with it in Parliament for nearly two years. The Congress’ growing proximity to the Left could push the Trinamul towards the BJP after the Assembly elections.

The NCP, which is supporting the GST Bill and Aadhaar, wants to cooperate with the Centre on national and developmental issues, but in Maharashtra it is against the BJP-led government.

The Shiv Sena might be the oldest ideological ally of the BJP, but the latter cannot take the support of the Uddhav Thackeray-led party for granted because it had fought the Bihar Assembly polls against the NDA and had earlier backed Congress-supported nominees in the last two [presidential elections.

The TDP, LJP, RSLP and Apna Dal, which are with the BJP in the NDA, cannot be seen as its ideological allies.

9598 - Missing MPs cost govt a tie in RS on Aadhaar - TNN

Missing MPs cost govt a tie in RS on Aadhaar

TNN | Mar 18, 2016, 05.25 AM IS

New Delhi: The vote in Rajya Sabha on the Aadhaar bill could have been a tie but for the absence of a dozen NDA MPs when Congress-backed amendments were taken up on Wednesday. 

Among those absent were four Shiv Sena MPs, three BJP members, two from TDP, one SAD MP, RPI chief Ramdas Athavale and independent MP Parimal Nathwani. Though not part of the NDA, AIADMK voted against the amendments and one of its MPs was not present too

The 76-64 vote in favour of the Congress amendments marks the exact number of missing NDA MPs, that included defence minister Manohar Parrikar who was busy with a debate on the Pathankot attack in Lok Sabha.

BJP sources said the decision of several regional parties, including Trinamool, SP, BSP, BJD and NCP to abstain from voting made the contest very close and a little more effort on part of the NDA could have surprised the opposition. Some BJP members pointed out that the Congress-sponsored amendments to the President's address last week were carried by a 94-61 margin, indicating the depletion in opposition ranks.

Top Comment

when the equation changes Modi will not have any excuse for bringing reforms

Md Dubey

The AIADMK's decision to vote with the government on both occasions has been a shot in the arm. The difference makes it clear that more non-NDA parties did not go along with the amendments moved by Congress's Jairam Ramesh, making the RS vote a BJP versus Congress showdown. The reduced margin of comfort indicates that forcing a vote against the NDA in the upper House could become a risky business as the composition of RS changes, beginning with the current round of elections.

Congress will continue to have more MPs than BJP, but the gap is shrinking with the government expected to further buttress its position through seven nominated seats that will fall vacant soon. As its allies and other Congress opponents like TRS elect more MPs, the middle benches will play a more significant role as balancers between BJP and its main rival.

9593 - Aadhaar disquiet in the House - The Hindu

March 18, 2016

When the Narendra Modi government chose to introduce the Aadhaar Bill in the Lok Sabha a couple of weeks ago as a money bill, the move came under sharp criticism. The Rajya Sabha’s recommendations on a money bill are non-binding, and the Lok Sabha can reject them. The BJP-led NDA does not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha, and this was therefore seen as a way to avoid a defeat of the legislation. On Wednesday, this controversial strategy allowed the Lok Sabha to pass the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, in its original form, ignoring a handful of amendments to the legislation in the Upper House. It is unfortunate that the government chose to so summarily toss aside the Rajya Sabha’s concerns. Giving legal validity to a project that seeks to provide unique identification numbers to more than a billion people, that too after many futile attempts over six years, is no doubt an achievement. But the Bill’s un-amended passage is a missed opportunity, for those amendments would have only strengthened the stated idea behind it, which is to provide an efficient and transparent process to transfer benefits and subsidies.

The Opposition’s effort in the Rajya Sabha, spearheaded by Congress Member of Parliament Jairam Ramesh, was focussed around issues of privacy as well as preventing the use of Aadhaar being made mandatory. Very serious concerns have been raised from various quarters that the proposed Aadhaar database facilitates mass surveillance, and that there are not enough checks to secure citizens’ data from misuse. The Aadhaar Bill has provisions to deal with data protection, but these are not sufficient because exceptions are built into confidentiality clauses. One of those exceptions can occur on the grounds of national security. One of the five changes successfully moved by Mr. Ramesh was to substitute the words “public emergency and public safety” for “national security”. A related amendment aimed to include the Central Vigilance Commissioner or the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in the committee to decide on requests for biometric data. He had also sought to make Aadhaar optional, by permitting alternative means of identification and giving individuals the choice to opt out of the system. According to the Bill, Aadhaar is necessary for receiving certain services and benefits. An amendment successfully moved by Mr. Ramesh sought to do away with a clause that deemed “nothing in this Act shall prevent the use of the Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual for any purpose, whether by the state or any body, company or person.” Certainly, critics of the amendments would compare the Congress-led UPA’s version of the Aadhaar Bill and the NDA’s version to point out the Congress’s hypocrisy now that it is no longer in power. But that is a political point. What is important, and disquieting, is that the Opposition did seek to work in popularly voiced privacy concerns within the ambit of the legislation, and these interventions have been disregarded.

9588 - Rajya Sabha amendments to Aadhaar Bill had lacunae: FM Arun Jaitley - Economic Times

Rajya Sabha amendments to Aadhaar Bill had lacunae: FM Arun Jaitley

By PTI | Mar 18, 2016, 06.44 PM IST

NEW DELHI: Justifying Lok Sabha's rejecting the amendments made by the Upper house to the Aadhaar Bill, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today said adoption of changes would have pushed the legislation, aimed at streamlining the payment of benefits, into realms of unconstitutionality. 

Acceptance of the amendments would have led to much wider encroachment of the Right of Privacy and an auditor or an anti-corruption authority overseeing issues of national security, he said. 

"These lacunae would have pushed the Aadhaar law to the realm of unconstitutionality. Obviously, the Lok Sabha did not agree with the above suggestions, and in my view, rightly so," he said in a Facebook post. 

The Lok Sabha on the last of the first half of Budget session on Wednesday waited for Rajya Sabha to decide on the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, and then swiftly rejected the amendments made to the legislation. 

The amendments to be bill in Rajya Sabha, where the ruling NDA does not have majority, were moved by Congress members including Jairam Ramesh. 

Jaitley said the legislation, aimed at better targeting of subsidies and benefits through use of unique identification number, contains stringent provisions both substantially and procedurally to protect privacy. 

While National Security is the only ground on which a Competent Authority can share core bio-metric information contained in Aadhaar, amendments wanted the condition to be replaced with "vague" and "elastic" Public Emergency or in the interest of public safety. 

"It is also not clear as to how Aadhaar information would have been used in dealing with situations of public emergency or public safety," he said. 

Jaitley said adoption of the amendment "would have provided a scope much wider for encroaching upon privacy than the words 'National Security' which existed in both the 2010 (law moved by the UPA) and 2016 law, and would have potentially become the grounds for constitutional challenge at a later date."

9532 - Aadhaar, key Bills cause logjam in Upper House - Deccan Chronicle

Aadhaar, key Bills cause logjam in Upper House

DECCAN CHRONICLE WITH AGENCY INPUTS

Published

Mar 15, 2016, 2:40 am IST

New Delhi: With just two days left for the Budget Session to disperse for a month-long break, a logjam is developing between the NDA and Congress-led Opposition over the extension of Rajya Sabha sittings to discuss key bills, such as Aadhaar, which the Opposition wants to discuss and make some changes, though it was passed in the Lok Sabha on Friday after being tagged as a money bill.

While this newspaper has reported that at the Rajya Sabha business advisory committee meet on Friday, the government refused to entertain pleas to extend Rajya Sabha sittings by a few days to discuss the Aadhaar Bill, there are indications the Congress and other Opposition parties are studying the Constitution and parliamentary rules closely, to find a loophole to at least embarrass the government, even if they cannot defeat the bill in the Upper House.

As per norms, a money bill can only be discussed by the Rajya Sabha and then has to be returned to the Lok Sabha within 14 days of its passage there. However, Article 109 of the Constitution does provide a window where the Rajya Sabha can suggest amendments to a money bill, which can be accepted or rejected by the Lok Sabha.

The Opposition, sources said, hopes to use this window to embarrass the government in the Upper House, but only if the sittings are extended.

Meanwhile, a PTI report said, however, that the government was in discussion with several parties and some  were against extending the first half of the session.

9517 - Government's Next Move In The Aadhaar Game Of Chess Is A 'No' - NDTV

Government's Next Move In The Aadhaar Game Of Chess Is A 'No'

All India | Written by Rahul Shrivastava | 

Updated: March 14, 2016 17:21 IST

Government's Next Move In The Aadhaar Game Of Chess Is A 'No'

All India | Written by Rahul Shrivastava | Updated: March 14, 2016 17:21 IST

The Aadhaar Bill 2016 seeks to give legal sanction to the unique identification number programme

HIGHLIGHTS

1. Govt rejects opposition's demand to extend Rajya Sabha by two days
2. Opposition wanted extra time to record objections to Aadhaar Bill
3. Passing of Aadhaar as money bill in Lok Sabha a 'dirty trick': Opposition

The government has rejected the opposition's demand to extend the sitting of the Rajya Sabha by two days in the first phase of the Budget session, nipping the latter's plan to corner it over the Aadhaar Bill, controversially passed by the Lok Sabha last week. 

The opposition had in a rare move sought that the Upper House sit for two days extra before breaking for a 39-day recess on Wednesday, March 16. 

In a chess-like move, strategically timed, the BJP-led government used its brute majority in the Lok Sabha to pass the Aadhaar Bill as a "money bill" last Friday. This means that the Rajya Sabha, where the government is in a minority, can only discuss the bill, but cannot make changes to it. If it recommends changes, the Lok Sabha can choose not to accept them. 

Also, the Rajya Sabha must discuss a money bill within 14 days of it being officially received by the house, or it will be "deemed passed."

The bill was "officially received" in the Rajya Sabha today, only two days before the House breaks for the recess.

"The Aadhaar Bill proves how the government, facing heat in the upper house, has decided to bypass it completely," alleged CPM leader Sitaram Yechury. 

The opposition had demanded an extension at the last three meetings of the business advisory committee or BAC which is made up of leaders of all parties, attempting to ensure that the bill is discussed in the Upper House so that it can record its objections to certain clauses and to the bill being presented as a money bill. 

There is little time. Much of Tuesday will be devoted to farewell speeches by retiring members. The Rajya Sabha also has to conclude its debate on the Rail Budget by today evening and then take up the Union Budget. 

The Aadhaar Bill 2016 seeks to give legal sanction to the unique identification number programme or Aadhaar as a single window to distribute subsidy and other direct benefit transfers.

Story First Published:March 14, 2016 13:11 IST

9511 - Opposition to protest government's plan to introduce Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill - Economic Times

Opposition to protest government's plan to introduce Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill

By ET Bureau | Mar 14, 2016, 05.50 AM IST

Post a Comment

NEW DELHI: Opposition parties are planning a protest in the Rajya Sabha on Monday against the government's plan to introduce the Aadhaar bill as a money bill in the House.

Categorising the bill, already passed by the Lok Sabha, as a money bill will strip the Opposition dominated Rajya Sabha of its powers to vote for or against the legislation.

The Opposition in the Rajya Sabha has limited options on a money bill. The maximum the House can do on a money bill is to recommend amendments, which are not binding on the government, or 'sit on' the bill for 14 days, after which it is deemed passed by Parliament.

"We have information that the government is planning to bring the Aadhaar bill to the Rajya Sabha with a certificate from the Lok Sabha speaker, naming it as a money bill," said a senior Opposition leader. "It is very unfortunate and amounts to circumventing the rules to undercut the Upper House. We will oppose it."

Congress leaders say "bulldozing bills under the garb of money bills could seriously impact the government's efforts to negotiate consensus on many other bills, including the GST bill, which is a Constitution amendment bill that requires twothirds vote in both the houses".

As per rules, the Lok Sabha speaker is vested with powers to categorize a bill as a money bill. A money bill is one that has an in-built provision to draw funds from the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI).

The political class is divided whether the Aadhaar bill falls under this category or not, with the government insisting that the bill draws money from the CFI as its scope has been enlarged from a unique instrument for identity to the one that will be used to target subsidies. But the Opposition questions this logic and insists the government's only attempt is to push the bill through without the legislative scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, where it lacks a majority.

The leaders of the Congress, Left and many regional parties are coordinating to put a united opposition to the government's move. In what could be an indirect criticism of the Lok Sabha speaker's ruling, these opposition parties will seek a detailed debate on rules and provisions that qualify a bill to be a money bill.

The government has already informed Opposition parties about its intent to extend the first phase of the budget session by two more days to March 18. While the Rajya Sabha is scheduled to discuss/pass the railway budget and the whistleblowers bill on Monday, the Lok Sabha will prioritise the passing of finance and real estate bills this wee

9480 - As Aadhaar Bill Is Passed In Lok Sabha, Opposition Alleges Dirty Trick - NDTV

As Aadhaar Bill Is Passed In Lok Sabha, Opposition Alleges Dirty Trick

All India | Reported by Sunil Prabhu, Edited by Shuchi Shukla | Updated: March 12, 2016 00:23 IST

NEW DELHI: 

HIGHLIGHTS

1. Lok Sabha passes Aadhar Bill as a money bill, opposition protests
2. Govt trying to make Rajya Sabha redundant as it's in minority: Opposition
3. Money bill once passed in Lok Sabha can't be amended in Rajya Sabha

The Aadhaar Bill 2016 was passed as a money bill on Friday afternoon by the Lok Sabha, where the BJP-led government has a big majority. The opposition alleges a conspiracy to undermine the Rajya Sabha.

Once a Money Bill is passed by the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha or Upper House can only discuss it and not make amendments. It also has to discuss the bill immediately as a money bill, if not discussed within 14 days of being tabled in the Rajya Sabha, is "deemed passed".

The opposition says the government is attempting to make "redundant" the Rajya Sabha, where it is in a minority and has found it difficult to push bills.

The Aadhaar bill 2016 seeks to give legal sanction to the unique identification number programme or Aadhaar as a single window to distribute subsidy and other direct benefit transfers.

"If the Congress party wants copyright on this bill am willing to give it to them. But do not delay the bill," said Finance Minister Arun Jaitley speaking on the Bill in the Lok Sabha.

Mr Jaitley explained why the government has sought to present the Bill as a Money Bill, saying it differs from the one brought by the Congress-led UPA as "the prinicipal purpose is spending the money" for beneficiaries and not as a mere identification document.

He said 97 per cent adults in the country were now covered by Aadhaar and promised that the government would not allow its misuse.

"Dont rush with this," said the Biju Janata Dal's Bhartruhari Mahtab, seeking that the Aadhaar bill be referred to a parliamentary panel.

The Congress, which says it backs the bill but not as a money bill, supported the BJD demand, with its Mallikarjun Kharge saying, "We are for this bill but we have suggestions."

Angry Opposition parties are discussing seeking the President's intervention.

"The Rajya Sabha will be severely impaired if the government decides to adopt the money bill route for the Aadhaar Bill," the Congress's Ghulam Nabi Azad told NDTV. "It will be the first step towards making the Rajya Sabha redundant in the days to come."

Story First Published:March 11, 2016 14:42 IST

9434 - Aadhaar’s basis - Indian Express

Aadhaar’s basis

Putting the unique ID on the statute books would pave the way to leakproof subsidies.

By: Express News Service | Updated: March 4, 2016 12:20 am

Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. (AP Photo)

In the course of his budget speech, the finance minister had alluded to the government’s resolve to extend statutory backing to Aadhaar and, within the week, it has tabled the requisite bill in the Lok Sabha. This is what the UPA government should have done right in the beginning, when it appointed Nandan Nilekani to create the technology framework for a biometric ID. Nilekani himself should have requested legislation instead of insisting that data security could be assured technologically. 

A law defining biometric IDs and the parameters within which they can be legally used would have annulled the first argument against the project, concerning privacy. There is little disagreement about its utility and appropriateness for promoting financial inclusion and leakproofing direct benefit transfers from government, and the NDA has rightly forged ahead to give Aadhaar a statutory basis as an opt-in system for securing benefits.

The government has prudently moved a money bill, which means that its lack of numbers in the Upper House will not be an impediment. The Rajya Sabha’s role is limited to returning the Aadhaar Bill to the Lok Sabha with recommendations within a set timeframe. It cannot block or alter the legislation, but can sound warnings. If it does, the government should pay heed, or it would run the risk of detracting from the perceived legitimacy of Aadhaar. While pushing Aadhaar through as a money bill is tactically sound, for it will be signed into law, the government must know that it is sidestepping extended parliamentary debate. In the legislature, discussion confers credibility more surely than numbers, and being responsive to objections about Aadhaar would strengthen the ID. Resistance to Aadhaar partly owes to the perception that it was neither secure nor voluntary, and activism and lawsuits retarding its deployment resulted.

The bill goes into privacy issues, but it cannot be assumed that matters on these questions pending before a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will melt away. However, the bill is a decisive step towards a leakproof subsidy regime and, eventually, a cashless economy. The latter should be the political goal of Aadhaar — a financial system where money is dematerialised, value is transferred electronically and the lack of cash makes corruption unrewarding. Politically, that is a target worth shooting for.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/upa-union-budget-arun-jaitley-nda-aadhaars-basis/#sthash.FLQLcxh2.dpuf

9421 - Little Rajya Sabha role, Aadhaar Bill to be moved as Money Bill - Economic Times

Little Rajya Sabha role, Aadhaar Bill to be moved as Money Bill

By Ravish Tiwari & Gulveen Aulakh, ET Bureau | Mar 03, 2016, 04.00 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Aadhaar (Delivery of Benefits, Subsidies and Services) Bill, 2016 proposed by FM Arun Jaitley is all set to make the Aadhaar number mandatory for availing subsidy benefits of any government scheme, contrary to SC rulings last year that make that voluntary. 

The proposed Bill, sources revealed, have already been "seen" by the Attorney General who "has opined that the same can be introduced as a Money Bill" in Parliament where opposition dominated Rajya Sabha will have no power to force any change in the legislation. 

The proposed legislation will be moved along with a motion to withdraw the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI), 2010 which was introduced by the previous UPA government to provide statutory backing to the UIDAI. 

The bill, proposed by Jaitely on Monday while presenting the Union Budget, is set to be introduced in Parliament shortly. 

The salient features of the proposed Bill, reviewed by ET, makes "proof of Aadhaar number and Aadhar Authentication as a condition for receipt of benefit, subsidy, etc. funded from Consolidated Fund of India" which was not the case of the UPA's legislation. 

This feature of the proposed legislation, however, appeared to run counter to the two rulings of the SC. 

"The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen," the SC had ruled in an interim order in August last year , exempting its use for public distribution system (PDS) and LPG distribution. 

The Court reiterated its stance again in October 2015 when central government sought concession for voluntary usage of Aadhaar in other government programmes pending a final verdict on Aadhaar. 

"We will also make it clear than 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," SC had ordered in October last year while allowing the government to allow use of Aadhar in schemes like MGNREGA, EPFO, PM's Jan Dhan Yojana and National Social Assistance Programme. 

While the standing committee of Finance headed by BJP leader and former FM Yashwant Sinha had trashed the UIDAI's enrolment process as something that "may have far reaching consequences for national security", the proposed Bill by BJP government seeks to abide by the decision to grant Aadhaar to every "resident". 

The BJP, in fact, had also objected, saying that granting Aadhaar to "residents" may allow illegal Bangladeshis to avail it and later misuse for their purposes. 

However, the salient features suggest that the definition of resident has been "modified" to include "a person who is resident in India within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Income-Tax Act". But, it did not indicate how it will address BJP's earlier concern regarding its usage by illegal immigrants residing in the country for long. 

The proposed legislation, in a significant measure, seeks to protect the electronic information collected by the UIDAI from misuse as it seeks to specify that biometric information shall be "specifically deemed to be sensitive personal information as per IT Act". It will also define the "core biometric information" and will insist "prohibition on the sharing of core biometric information". 

The Bill proposed by Jaitley, in fact, will provide statutory backing to the UIDAI as it provides for establishment of the Unique Identification Authroity of India consisting of "a Chairperson (part time or full tine) and two Members (part time)" which was also envisaged in the UPA's Bill. 

On the lines of UPA's bill, the proposed bill envisages an Oversight Committee to monitor disclosure of Information under the Act.