11738 - How governments manipulate India's Constitution - Daily O

How governments manipulate India's Constitution

Democracy cannot override constitutional balances.

Politics

 |  5-minute read |   07-08-2017

RAJEEV DHAVAN

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/modi-bjp-nda-constitution-india-supreme-court/story/1/18808.html

A few days ago, Congress lawyer-politician Kapil Sibal approached the Supreme Court pleading that the NOTA option be removed from the Rajya Sabha election in Gujarat. On August 3, the Supreme Court called this effort opportunistic. "When it suited you, you did not come. You came here on the eve of elections," it said.

Manipulation

The Gujarat Assembly is in turmoil due to defections after six Congress MLAs switched to the BJP camp amidst high drama. The BJP regime has become a symbol for manipulation and intrigue. With President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand (before 2017 Uttarakhand Assembly elections) firmly in mind, along with post-election manoeuvres in Manipur and Goa, the BJP has grown in public imagination as one that will manipulate the Constitution itself to comprehensibly govern India.

In many ways, democracy lies in the fear of all this which is capable of manipulating democratic processes to produce undemocratic results. With Kerala burning over the death of an RSS worker, there is now a demand for President's Rule in the state, which was infamously a victim of such in 1959 and many times thereafter.

Can India's constitutional democracy survive this onslaught? Curiously, this onslaught has come from both sides in India's independent history. The Indira Gandhi years (1967-77) were massive examples of such manipulation. Now the BJP era from 2014 represents the second high point of manipulated democracy. Defections are back. President's Rule is back. Parliament is threatened by majoritarianism. This essay is about the internal manipulation of the Parliament itself.

Recently, the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed off as a Money Bill to disempower the Rajya Sabha to make amendments. The example is a telling one as indeed, the issue is of a Money Bill. 

Why was this done? All Bills require the attention of both Houses. If they disagree, unlike England, a joint session would have to be called (Article 108). Jaitley has often threatened joint sessions, but such thoughts have suffered forbearance.

A joint session would not have been an exercise in constitutionality or to restore matters constitutionally, but using numbers for the Lok Sabha to overwhelm the Rajya Sabha. Such a manipulation should be a last resort. For the Aadhaar Bill, the way out appeared to be to call it a Money Bill, which requires a special procedure (as mentioned in Article 110).

Since the Aadhaar Act contained incidental expenditure in the Consolidated Fund, it was stated to be a Money Bill. Once that is done, the Rajya Sabha can discuss it but not pass amendments binding on the Lok Sabha. That is why this manoeuvre was called the subversion of democracy since it choked up discussion on Aadhaar which does more than using unique identification for service delivery.

Face-off

This created an impasse. Was the Lok Sabha Speaker's certification that this was a Money Bill final? When the matter went to the Supreme Court, a telling exchange took place between the counsel and the court, with Chief Justice JS Khehar confidently declaring, "If the Speaker says green is blue, we will tell blue is blue."

Khehar is fond of making off-the-cuff remarks for drama, but does this mean that the Supreme Court is willing to inquire into the speaker's certification which is part of the parliamentary process into which the Supreme Court does not dare to interfere? If it does, a quarrel of gigantic proportions will be set up between the legislature and the judiciary.

Of course, there is a view that the Supreme Court can, and should step in, to review the speaker's decision. But this is a big step. It is all very well to say that in defection matters, the speaker's decision will not be final as in the Kihoto case (1992). But, we can't have the Supreme Court regulating parliamentary procedures in every finite way.

In such a clash of arms, both institutions will suffer. Indubitably, the Supreme Court has very limited, if any, powers of intervention, while parliamentary proceedings are actually taking place unless Parliament transgresses fundamental rights (as in the UP legislature case (1964) when the Assembly threatened to send High Court judges to jail. Here, as in Cash for-questions case (2007), the Supreme Court will define the privileges of the legislature so that the latter does not become a law unto itself by arrogating unlimited powers to itself. But can the Supreme Court go further?

SC intervention

Take the Money Bill example. While the Bill is going through Parliament (or Assembly), the court cannot interfere. But, after it becomes an Act, can the Supreme Court say that the "procedure" followed was wrong because the Bill could not have been certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker? 

In the UP Lokayukta case (2014) where I appeared, the court took the traditional view that the speaker's view was final.

This gets us back to our original dilemma. If the Parliament blatantly cheats on itself by using ramrod procedures to stifle discussion, does it become a law unto itself? The present answer seems "yes it can". That is a blow to democratic constitutionalism.

We are in danger of the Constitution's internal procedures being grossly abused, and nothing can be done about it. The people seem helpless. Our Constitution rests on two sets of principles: democratic and constitutional. Democracy cannot override constitutional balances. Nor can these "balances" throttle democratic discourse. Today, the BJP is threatening the very fabric of constitutional governance.

(Courtesy of Mail Today.)

10652 - Aadhaar not mandatory for availing subsidy, benefits: Centre - The Hindu

Aadhaar not mandatory for availing subsidy, benefits: Centre

PTI

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 30, 2016 17:36 IST

Individuals without Aadhaar can offer alternate means of identification for availing government subsidies, benefits and services, the IT and Electronics Ministry has informed the Lok Sabha.

The government on Wednesday said it is strictly adhering to Supreme Court’s order that production of Aadhaar will not be a condition for citizens to obtain any benefit due to them.

Individuals without Aadhaar number can offer alternate means of identification for availing government subsidies, benefits and services, it added.

“Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act provides that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service,” Minister of State for IT and Electronics P.P. Chaudhary informed the Lok Sabha.

The Supreme Court, in its interim order dated August 11, 2015, had directed that the production of Aadhaar will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen.

The apex court directed the government that Aadhaar will not be used for any purpose other than PDS scheme, kerosene and LPG subsidy, which was later extended to include schemes of MGNREGS, National Social Assistance Programme pensions (old age, widow and disability pensions), PMJDY and EPFO, through its interim order dated October 15, 2015.

Mr. Chaudhary added that the Supreme Court, through its October 15, 2015, had also ruled that the Aadhaar scheme is purely voluntary and cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by the Court.

The government had introduced the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, in Parliament on March 3, 2016, and it was passed by the Parliament on March 16, 2016.

The Bill received the assent of the President on March 25, 2016 and has been published in the Official Gazette on March 26, 2016, as Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

10540 - Aadhaar act kicks in as govt notifies rules - Hindustan Times

Aadhaar act kicks in as govt notifies rules

INDIA Updated: Sep 15, 2016 10:14 Ist

HT Correspondent  Hindustan Times

The government has come out with a set of rules mandating agencies to inform people the manner in which their information will be used and the nature of recipients with whom it is intended to be shared to ensure that data collected for issuing Aadhaar – the 12 digit identity number – is not misused, a concern raised by rights activists.

These details will be part of the enrolment form that a person applying for the Aadhaar number has to fill.

“Disclosure of information to residents at the time of enrollment will ensure that the latter is fully aware of the agencies with whom his biometric and demographic data is being shared,” ABP Pandey, chief executive of Unique Identification Authority of India or UIDAI, told Hindustan Times.

The rules were notified on Wednesday under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial, and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

It also mandates that agencies will also have to tell individuals that they have the right to access this information and the system in place for the same. Authorities will also have to seek the consent of an individual to collect, store and use his Aadhaar number for a specified purpose.

If a person does not give his consent, the individual will have to be told the alternative to submission of Aadhaar number.

The rules with respect to enrolment, authentication, data security and how information is to be shared also make it mandatory that all data collected by different service agencies are stored in data centres located in India. And, UIDAI will also have to set up contact centres for resolution of queries and grievances of residents.

Allaying fears that those eligible for subsidies and government welfare programmes could be deprived of the benefits because they hadn’t been enrolled in Aadhaar, Pandey said that no government department can deny services in case a person does not have the unique identity number.

“The onus will be on the central or state department to ensure enrollment of beneficiaries who do not have Aadhaar through appropriate measures, including setting up enrollment centres at convenient locations,” he said.

10507 - Full Aadhaar enrolment a major challenge, says new UIDAI chairman - Live Mont

Last Modified: Thu, Sep 29 2016. 09 31 AM IST

Full Aadhaar enrolment a major challenge, says new UIDAI chairman

J. Satyanarayana, the newly appointed chairman of UIDAI, says achieving full enrolment and continuous updating of birth and death records will be the major challenges

Suranjana Roy

With more than 1 trillion electronic or digital transactions by next year, what is needed is a progression from e-governance to real-time governance. Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint

New Delhi: With the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsides, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 notified earlier this month, achieving full enrolment and continuous updating of birth and death records will be the major challenges going ahead, said J. Satyanarayana, the newly appointed chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

Speaking at a panel discussion on financial inclusion and benefit transfers at an event organised by the Centre for digital financial inclusion late evening on Wednesday, he also talked about the need for education among people under the Aadhaar Act.

“There are 3 key challenges that need to be addressed. Firstly, the remaining enrolments must be completed. We are moving at a very slow pace currently and this needs to speed up,” he said.

Secondly, the system must be updated with over 1 billion records. “The birth and the death rates must be continuously updated. Other than that, the age group of 5-15 years is also a crucial point,” Satyanarayana added.

Also Read: Is Aadhaar’s use mandatory?

Lastly, the use of Aadhaar has to be promoted within the ambit of the provisions and regulations of the Act. These regulations contain procedures to ensure enrolment, authentication and use of Aadhaar and data and privacy protection which must be strictly in accordance with the Act, he said.

With more than 1 trillion electronic or digital transactions by next year, what is needed is a progression from e-governance to real-time governance.

“ Real-time governance indicates that we should not wait for the service to happen, it must be delivered at real time to us,” the chairman added.

Other members of the panel were Aruna Sundarajan, secretary, ministry of electronics and information technology; R. Chandrashekhar, president , Nasscom; and Peeyush Kumar, secretary, Direct Benefit Transfer mission.

Suranjana Roy

10488 - Aadhaar can't be mandatory, reiterates Supreme Court - Business Standard

Aadhaar can't be mandatory, reiterates Supreme Court

Government says it has established a legal bypass with new Aadhaar-related laws

Nitin Sethi  |  New Delhi 

September 24, 2016 Last Updated at 00:30 IST

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s plan to universalise Aadhaar through schemes, benefits and services of the state may get mired in litigation despite the law and regulations it has put in place in the recent past. A recent Supreme Court order has come as a warning signal of a possible legal imbroglio. The government, however, remains unfazed and is confident of the legal remedy already in place.

The Supreme Court annulled an order of the government, making Aadhaar mandatory in scholarship schemes for students. A two-member bench gave this ruling on September 14, pointing out that the apex court in its interim orders of October 2015 had barred the government from making the identification platform mandatory till pending the litigation was concluded.

It is the first such order by the SC, reiterating the stay on making Aadhaar mandatory after the Parliament passed and the President gave the assent to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, in March this year. The Act became fully operational on September 12 when regulations under it were notified by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

According to the government, the new regulations will help it universalise the use of Aadhaar in all kind of schemes, programmes and processes of the government and provide safeguards to people. Multiple senior officials in UIDAI and the Union government said the new regulations adequately address the concerns raised in the petitions being heard in the court on Aadhaar.

“This particular government order (mandating Aadhaar for scholarships) was inconsistent with the Supreme Court orders as well as the Aadhaar law. So, it needed to be rectified, we agree. The new law itself was not challenged before the court in this particular case,” said an official working on the legal issues around the identity platform.

He explained: “Under the new law and the regulations, we do not use the word ‘mandatory’. The regulations require authorities to ask for Aadhaar against the schemes and if someone does not have it, the agency or authority is required to ensure the person gets enrolled. Till the time he or she enrols, the person will not be denied the benefits,” he said. “So, no one is going to be deprived of the benefits for the lack of Aadhaar,” he emphasised. “But just like you earlier required a ration card for availing public distribution system (PDS), now the government can use this documentation route for identification of beneficiaries. One could not say I do not want a ration card, but I want subsidised rations under PDS. Can one?”

IDENTITY CRISIS

Supreme Court’s September 14 decision reiterates its interim order to not make Aadhaar mandatory; first such order after the Aadhaar law was passed Govt says Aadhaar can be a necessary condition for schemes and programmes, but after providing for universal enrolment In May 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi set deadlines to make Aadhaar a universal condition for major social schemes and services This includes MNREGA, NFSA, Income Tax Declarations, NGO funding and pensions 8 of the 9 Aadhaar-related cases to be heard by a five-member Bench of the apex court

Those opposing Aadhaar believe the government is surreptitiously making it mandatory by hiding behind the legalese. The net result is the same, they claim — people will be denied benefits if they don’t have Aadhaar. Whether the government’s logic cuts ice with the Supreme Court would be decided when the five-member bench hears a host of petitions, lying before it since the interim orders of 2015. A petition supported by the Congress party questioning concerns of privacy and the passage of the law as a Money Bill in the Lok Sabha is also pending before the apex court, though notices have not been issued in the case as yet.

At the moment, Business Standard could list nine petitions and two interventions pending before the Supreme Court on different issues pertaining to Aadhaar. On the other hand, the Software Freedom Law Centre lists out many dozen instances of alleged violation of the Supreme Court orders in the use of Aadhaar, or of making it mandatory. The UIDAI on September 15 sent a missive to all state and central authorities to identify schemes where Aadhaar would be made compulsory but with the provision that those who don’t have it will be given a chance to enrol. It called it making Aadhaar ‘as a condition precedent’.

Many departments of the Union and state governments began making Aadhaar mandatory before this. For example, in August 2016, the NITI Aayog made it mandatory for NGOs seeking central government grants to submit their functionaries’ Aadhaar numbers. It cited a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ordering as much in May 2016. Business Standard reviewed the minutes of these meetings where timeframe was fixed for ensuring universal use of Aadhaar for many government services, including all major social schemes, on a priority basis.

Moreover, Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement has already been infused in schemes such as PDS in several states. Several media reports have shown either its failure to authenticate people’s identity, leading to denial of benefits, or questionable manual overrides, undoing the entire logic of the technology. But that remains a question partly of the inherent failure rates of the biometric technology and of using the technology when the country doesn’t even have the necessary communication and other infrastructure in place, as a recent reply in the Parliament by the government showed.

"In light of the new regulations and the law now in place, any earlier order by different authorities making it mandatory would have to be amended to say yes Aadhaar is required but if someone doesn’t have it, the authority should enrol the person. If he or she still does not enrol then the scheme or law takes its course,” explained one of the officials.

But, Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement has already been infused in to schemes such as PDS in several states. Several media reports have now come in of either its failure to authenticate people’s identity losing to denial of benefits or questionable manual overrides being provided undoing the entire logic of having using the technology in the place. But that remains a question partly of the inherent failure rates of the biometric technology and of using the technology when the country does not have the necessary communication and other infrastructure in place, as a recent reply in the Parliament by the government proved.

10479 - Mandatory Aadhaar: Govt has gone against SC, privacy remains the only issue - Catch News

Mandatory Aadhaar: Govt has gone against SC, privacy remains the only issue

VISHAKH UNNIKRISHNAN

@sparksofvishdom | Updated on: 23 September 2016, 11:27 IST

With the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill in March, the government scuttled the Supreme Court's October 2015 order that Aadhaar could not be made compulsory.

The Supreme Court had made it clear that Aadhaar could not be made mandatory, and could only be 'extended' to services like transfer of cooking gas subsidy, Jan Dhan Yojana, and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act on a voluntary basis.

The court had also ordered the government to "give wide publicity in the electronic and print media, including radio and television networks, that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card", and that "production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen".

The government, however, has been flouting the apex court's order ever since.

On 12 September 2016, the government notified sections under the Aadhaar Act, thus providing legal backing for its use in various government schemes.

NO HEARINGS ON AADHAAR

With this move, the legal battle over Aadhaar in the Supreme Court has got restricted to the issue of privacy.

The petitioners in the case involving privacy had challenged the unique identification (UID) number used to collect information from individuals, and contested that sharing such data would be a violation of the right to privacy.

The matter was subsequently referred a Constitutional Bench on 11 August 2015. But even a year later, the Bench is yet to be constituted.

There are a number of petitions still pending with the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Aadhaar, both with respect to privacy, and whether it helps avoid pilferage in the disbursement of government schemes like the public distribution system.

These petitions were placed before the Supreme Court way before the Act was passed and notified, but were never heard. Around seven such petitions still lie with the Supreme Court.

The petition concerning the matter of privacy was also referred to the Chief Justice of India on the grounds of "institutional integrity and judicial discipline". But not a single hearing has been held.

However, on 14 September, the Supreme Court reiterated its stand, stating that "production of an Aadhaar card will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen". In the same order the Supreme Court, struck down government directions attempting to make Aadhaar compulsory for scholarship schemes.

The order, in turn, made it illegal for the government's proposed directions to make Aadhaar mandatory for a wide range of benefits and services, from pensions and scholarships to railway bookings and under the DBT scheme.

CASES WHERE GOVT HAS FLOUTED SC ORDER

• In Odisha, many state-run colleges professed their inability to disburse funds due to a sudden requirement of students having to share their Aadhaar numbers. Minister of state for tribal welfare, Sudam Marandi, informed the regional media that there was already a fully functional portal called Prerana that allowed for SC/ST students to avail their scholarships, and the money was directly transferred to their bank accounts. He also added that if Aadhaar were to be made mandatory, many students would be deprived of their dues.
• In June, the Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation, which sought to quash a 2015 Maharashtra government resolution, making it mandatory for children to submit Aadhaar details while securing school admission. The PIL had taken into account the Supreme Court's order, saying the state government's resolution to make Aadhaar mandatory was contradictory to the apex court's order. The HC's stance was in direct contrast to the SC's.
• The Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, had also expressed her displeasure over the Centre's decision to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for scholarships. At a rally in August, she had said: "At least 800 villages in Bengal don't have banks. Over one crore people in Bengal don't have Aadhaar cards. How can they make it compulsory when one crore people in Bengal will not get pensions, subsidies or scholarships? Let them first set up banks before making Aadhaar compulsory."

TOO LATE NOW

It might be too late now to debate the benefits of Aadhaar. A Cabinet Secretariat notification to all ministries reads that all subsidies and welfare schemes must be brought under Direct Benefit Transfer scheme by 31 March 2017.

Nikhil Dey, a social activist and one of the petitioners, says: "There is confusion because the government is not taking into account what the Supreme Court has to say. The government, whether it talks about students, subsidies or railways, talks about making Aadhaar compulsory. The government has the capacity to shove it down people's throats. The issue with Aadhaar is, the more marginalised you are, the more marginalised you become with Aadhaar."

Reetika Khera, an economist in the Humanities and Social Sciences department at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, says: "Blissfully ignoring Supreme Court orders, the government is trying to create a fait accompli on Aadhaar. We are concerned that the court has not heard a series of petitions challenging the government's increasingly coercive approach. Further, the savings estimates which the government presented before the court to allow the use of Aadhaar in the PDS, NREGA, pensions etc, have been have challenged by the CAG and by independent researchers."

10472 - Aadhaar Act: what it means for you - Live Mint

Last Modified: Thu, Sep 22 2016. 10 46 AM IST

Aadhaar Act: what it means for you

Aadhaar has received a legal backing to be used in social welfare schemes and to disburse subsidies as well

Uttaresh Venkateshwaran

Priyanka Parashar/Mint

With an intention to use Aadhaar for all government schemes, the Centre last week notified all sections, but one, of the Aadhaar, (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsides, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. This means that Aadhaar has received a legal backing to be used in social welfare schemes and to disburse subsidies as well.

The Supreme Court had last year ruled that use of this system will not be mandatory and can only be extended to services like transfer of cooking gas subsidy, Jan Dhan Yojana, and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The ambit has slowly increased as it is seen as a valid document in daily financial life as well.

If you don’t have an Aadhaar number yet, should you apply for one, as it looks set to become a key validation and verification document? Here’s a look at Aadhaar’s usage in availing financial services.

Use in transactions

Taxation: You can e-verify income tax returns with the help of Aadhaar. You need to link your Aadhaar and Permanent Account Number (PAN) to the income tax department’s website with the help of a one-time password (OTP). However, it is important that the details such as name of the person on PAN and Aadhaar are same. Any difference, even in the spelling, may make it impossible to link the number. “It is not a mandatory element, but the government is looking to make the system more convenient for a taxpayer…from e-KYC to verification, Aadhaar will be a strong requirement to do business with the government,” said Archit Gupta, founder and chief executive officer, ClearTax.com, an online tax filing company.

According to the company, of the total number of e-verified income tax returns (ITRs) of 16.8 million this year with the tax department, around 7.77 million verifications were through the Aadhaar-PAN linked system.

Mutual funds: Aadhaar-based e-KYC has been facilitated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India for mutual funds. The procedure needs an OTP and Aadhaar. “There are some restrictions. If you do e-KYC through Aadhaar, you cannot make large-value investments due to limit of Rs 50,000 per year,” said Vishal Dhawan, founder and chief financial planner, Plan Ahead Wealth Advisors.

Banking: It is mandatory for customers to provide certain details to comply with know-your-customer (KYC) norms. To make this process paperless, the Reserve Bank of India had introduced Aadhaar-based e-KYC, which substitutes the need to submit multiple documents . Instead of giving separate proofs for ID and address, among others, a single document can replace all these requirements. To open a Jan Dhan Yojana account, one can simply use only Aadhaar as well. “It (Aadhaar) also helps in keeping track of the various schemes and programmes the government runs along with the beneficiaries,” said Adhil Shetty, chief executive officer and co-founder, Bankbazaar.com

Payments: Last week, there were reports that Aadhaar was going to be made mandatory to book railway e-tickets from December. A senior railway official, associated with the developments, clarified that it will not be in December. The Railways has been cracking down on fraudulent bookings with measures such as different timings for tatkal bookings, among others. Aadhaar-based booking may be a step in that direction.

What you should do

It would be prudent to apply and get an Aadhaar if you don’t have it already. You can visit the nearest enrolment centre along with proof documents and get your biometrics registered as well.

While not mandatory, experts recommend getting this card to benefit from smoother transactions.

Uttaresh Venkateshwaran

10437 - Government Notifies Legal Backing- Aadhaar To Help In Identification Of Subsidy Beneficiaries - Swarajya

Government Notifies Legal Backing- Aadhaar To Help In Identification Of Subsidy Beneficiaries

Swarajya Staff - September 14, 2016, 1:56 pm

The government on Monday extended a legal backing to Aadhaar ensuring that the benefits and subsidies assigned under various social welfare schemes reach people eligible for them. The notification authorises the government to use the 12-digit unique identification number for accurately targeting beneficiaries of national schemes and disbursing subsidies, thereby curbing leakage and reducing duplication.

The issued notification includes all the provisions of the legislation, except the one dealing with salaries of employees of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UDI).

The government got the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill passed in March, after introducing it as a money bill. The Act provided for statutory backing to the UIDAI by providing for the establishment of the Unique Identification Authority of India.

An interim order of the Supreme Court currently limits the use to the transfer of cooking gas subsidy, the public distribution system, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), all types of pension schemes, the employees provident fund and the Jan Dhan Yojana. Legal issues have also been raised regarding possible misuse of biometric details of the card holders.

“I think it is a good move if Aadhaar is being made compulsory, but people need to be assured about Aadhaar being an authentic form of identification, as biometrics can be misused,” the Livemint quoted S.L. Rao, the former director general of the National Council for Applied Economic Research, as saying.

The legal backing will override all concerns by eliminating outstanding issues regarding the use of Aadhaar pending in the Supreme Court, except the issue of privacy.

“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,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said.

10368 - Parents struggle to sign up infants, toddlers for Aadhaar as Centre eyes 100% enrolment by March - Scroll.In

Parents struggle to sign up infants, toddlers for Aadhaar as Centre eyes 100% enrolment by March

by Anumeha Yadav

Published Aug 29, 2016 · 12:30 pm.   

Critics say making the identification number mandatory for schemes pertaining to nutrition and education may result in exclusion of beneficiaries.

Image credit:  Anumeha Yadav

Anara Devi, a 50-year-old domestic help in Delhi and a migrant from Uttar Pradesh is the first working woman in her family. When her granddaughter was born last year, Anara Devi wanted her to have access to the best school facilities.

For this, she tried signing the child up for Ladli, a Delhi government scheme that provide financial assistance for a girl's education till secondary school. However, Devi’s granddaughter was turned away because the eight-month-old was not enroled in Aadhaar, a project that aims to assign a biometrics-based number to every resident.

The Delhi Women and Child Development Department officials would not allow her benefits under the scheme without an Aadhaar number.

Devi said her daughter-in-law had given birth in the government-run Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. “But they insisted on an Aadhaar for her,” she said, showing a copy of the birth certificate. “We missed out on Rs 11,000 benefit despite my granddaughter having been born through an institutional delivery.”

The Aadhaar or Unique Identification project was run under an executive order from 2009 when it was launched till this year. State governments, including the Delhi government, effectively made the Aadhaar mandatory for several schemes. In Delhi, it was made mandatory for the Ladli scheme, leading to exclusion of children like Devi's grand daughter.

After several cases were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legal and constitutional validity of the project, the court passed orders in October 2015 allowing the voluntary use of Aadhaar in only five schemes. 

In March 2016, National Democratic Alliance passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) law.

The new Aadhaar law states that the government can ask residents to produce an Aadhaar number for accessing any "subsidy, benefit or service". The law states that "if an Aadhaar number is not assigned" to an individual, they may use alternate means of identification. During the debate in parliament, however, legislators pointed out that when a government agency asks for an Aadhaar number mandatorily, a beneficiary has no choice but to get an Aadhaar number.

The government aims to cover the entire population, especially infants and children, under Aadhaar by March 2017.

Driving enrolment up

More than 98% adults in India are enrolled in the centralised Aadhar database and the government's focus has now shifted to children.

The Prime Minister’s Office has asked for five major central schemes for children to be linked to Aadhaar, reported the Economic Times on August 22.

Of 23.4 crore Indians who do not have an Aadhaar number till now, 92.7%, or 21.7 crore, are children, the report said. Of this, children below the age of five have the lowest enrolment rate, at 23%.

“Aadhaar enrolment for adults is nearly complete,” a senior official in the Cabinet Secretariat told Scroll.in. “The focus will now be on children.”

The Centre now plans to link to Aadhaar the mid-day meal scheme for schools; the Integrated Child Development Services scheme, which provides supplementary nutrition to infants; Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan for universal education; and the Integrated Child Protection Scheme, to safeguard rights of children.

However, gauging from the challenges that families in Delhi face while getting their children enrolled under the biometric-based identification scheme, this is not going to be an easy transition for beneficiaries.

Struggle to get registered

In Lal Gumbad camp, a slum in Delhi’s Sheikh Sarai area, Jia Devi and Ram Laali, whose husbands work as daily wage labourers in the national capital, had fared only marginally better than Anara Devi.

They had to travel 650 km to their village in Raebareli district of Uttar Pradesh, to get their daughters enrolled under Aadhaar.

“The staff at the Aadhaar enrolment centre at the Saket court in Delhi turned me away, saying my daughter is not even a year old, so we rushed to our village to get her enrolled so that she could avail herself of the Ladli scheme,” said Jia Devi, holding her 11-month-old.

Jia Devi traveled with her infant daughter to their village in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, after she failed to get an Aadhaar for her in Saket in Delhi. Image credit: Anumeha Yadav

Ram Laali said she had enrolled her three-year-old in Aadhaar in Delhi a year ago, but when they did not receive her Aadhaar number by post even months later, they were worried she would be left out of government schemes. “We then took her to our village as it would be easier to enrol there a second time,” said Ram Lalli.

Suneeta, a migrant from Rajasthan, said she had to make four trips with her two infants, aged three and five, to an Aadhaar agent’s shop in Delhi’s Khirki before she could get them enrolled.

She needed her children to have Aadhaar numbers so that her family could get their full government rations.

Under the National Food Security Act, 2013, low-income households are entitled to five kilo per head of subsidised foodgrains every month, from ration outlets. However, since the Delhi government has linked food ration to Aadhaar, beneficiaries have to enrol even infants under the identification scheme so that the family can get its full per-capita entitlement.

At Jagdamba camp, an adjoining slum, residents shared similar stories of having to make repeated trips to enrolment centres to get their children enrolled.

Laxmi Chauhan, a home-maker in her 20s, said both her husband and her son cannot get their five-kilo share of subsidised food grains because they do not have an Aadhaar card.

“They both enrolled, but we never received their Aadhaar card,” she said. “My son Vansh was two years old when we got him registered. When I tried to sign him up a second time, the staff said ‘iski toh already slip cut hui hai’ (they have already issued a slip for him). But if I show a print out of the enrolment slip to officials while trying to avail of the government schemes, it has a photo of a two-year-old. He is six years old now and officials say this is not the same boy.”

She added in exasperation: “What should I do – make him look as small as he does on the enrolment ID slip?”

Nearly all families reported having paid bribes ranging from Rs 30 to Rs 300 to sign up at privately run enrolment centres and for updating any details, such as change of address, on Aadhaar.

Consent of children

The Unique Identity Authority of India or UIDAI that issues Aadhaar numbers recognises that children below the age of five cannot give their biometric information as their finger prints and irises are yet to be fully developed.

So for children below 5, the UIDAI captures only the image of their face, and makes it mandatory for both parents to submit their Aadhaar and the child’s birth certificate. One parents’ fingerprint has to be submitted as a digital signature.

The children then have to enrol again once they turn five, when their biometric information will be captured. They have to enrol a third time and update their biometric data when they turn 18.

Officials believe linking schemes to Aadhaar allows better monitoring. “For instance, once an infant is enroled, delivery of nutritious meals in anganwadis [a government-run centre that provides meals and non-formal pre-school education to children] and vaccinations can be monitored,” said an official in the Cabinet Secretariat. “Aadhaar will also allow better monitoring of pre-natal care, check-ups of pregnant women.”

Child nutrition experts said making Aadhaar enrolment contingent on birth certificates will lead to large-scale exclusion of children from social schemes.

“In villages, births are noted in anganwadis and panchayats, but nearly 50% of families in North India do not have birth certificates and will get excluded,” said Dipa Sinha, an activist with Right to Food campaign.

Sinha said the government is ignoring the real problem and is focusing on something that need not be priority. “The main problem in mid-day meals is not of duplicate beneficiaries but of the quality of nutrition, and low budgets for the scheme,” she said. “How does linking the scheme to Aadhaar fix this?”

Legal experts raised concerns that enroling children in a biometrics-based database amounts to a violation of of their privacy as they are too young to provide informed consent.

One of the major concerns around Aadhaar has been that biometrics data is continuously being collected and centralised under the project even while India lacks a privacy law. The Supreme Court is set to form a constitution bench to examine the contours of the right to privacy flowing from the government's arguments in the Aadhaar case.

“After all the claims made about respecting citizens’ consent, how does the government explain collection of data of minors who cannot give such consent,” said Chinmayi Arun, executive director of Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University, Delhi. “Is there a system in place to purge their data without trace if they decide at the age 18 that this is too grave a violation of their privacy?”

Nine-year-old Sanjana Bairwal enrolling in Aadhaar in Bagru, Jaipur district, after it was made compulsory for students to enrol in Aadhaar to access scholarships. Credit: Anumeha Yadav

Dr Usha Ramanathan, a legal scholar, criticised the government for making Aadhaar mandatory for schemes covering infants and small children. “Already, Delhi has recorded instances where financial benefits and vaccinations were denied to infants under these schemes,” said Ramanathan. “By pushing Aadhaar on to infants, the government seems to be focused only on completing its database.”

Ramanathan added that the government was experimenting on infants and children with untested technology.

Untested technology

In a recent interview to­ Business Standard, ABP Pandey, director general of UIDAI, said that research was underway on whether the print of infants’ heel was more fully developed, and hence, more suited for capturing as biometric data during Aadhar enrolment.

During the Rajya Sabha debate on the Aadhaar Bill in March, finance minister Arun Jaitley too had spoken of this. “The fingerprints of a two-year-old will evolve and change,” he said. “Twenty years later, on his Aadhaar biometric details, those fingerprints would not be valid. Now, some of the experts who came, said, fingerprints would evolve and change, but there is one new information, as a part of biometric information, which doesn't with age. It is the printout of the heel…”

Said Ramnathan: “They themselves admit that they are experimenting with biometrics. What gives government the authority to experiment on anyone? The only group that will benefit in this process is technology manufacturers.”

Arghya Sengupta, research director at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which assisted the government in drafting the Aadhaar law, passed as a money Bill in March, said that the concerns around children’s consent as well as exclusion could be addressed through regulation.

“The baseline principle has to be that enrolment cannot be without consent and in the case of children, consent will have to be through parents or guardians,” said Sengupta. “Whether someone will have the right to rescind consent on becoming an adult is something that will have to be seen. Such a provision can be made through regulation.”

He added: “I am hopeful that there will be a robust grievance mechanism. The law should be a tool for inclusion, not exclusion.”

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

10316 - Aadhaar – Identity without consent, control or security - Legally India

08 August 2016

  An estimated 6-minute read

Aadhaar – Identity without consent, control or security

by CCG NLU Delhi

By Kritika Bharadwaj

The Central Government notified certain sections of the Aadhaar(Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016(‘the Act’)last month. As of now, only the sections setting out the establishment, powers and functions of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) have been brought into force.

Passed earlier this year, the Actis aimed at more efficient delivery of government subsidies and services by eliminating ghost identities and reducing corruption. It does so by obtaining and storing, in a centralized database, biometric and demographic information of all Indians who have been residing in India for more than one hundred and eighty-two days. This database, called the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR), not only stores information parted with at the time of enrolment, but also keeps a record of every identification request sent to it. Thus, every time a resident is required to authenticate her identity by any service provider, the CIDR would maintain a record of it.  Significantly, (and contrary to three previous Supreme Court orders), there is little room for doubt that the scheme has been envisaged as being mandatory to avail the benefits attached to it.

If the lack of an overarching privacy law wasn’t enough reason to worry, the government’s submission before the Supreme Court that there is no fundamental right to privacy has raised legitimate concerns about the project and its implementation. A lot has been written about the problems with the Act and the larger scheme itself. But two aspects of the privacy debate under Aadhaar deserve urgent attention. First, as a mandatory scheme with no option to opt-out at a later stage, Aadhaar raises important issues of consent and one’s right to control the use of their personal information. This has famously been articulated as ‘informational self-determination’ in several European jurisdictions. The second concern is procedural and pertains to the method of collection and storage of sensitive personal information.

No Power to Consent or Opt-out –

Biometric information such as fingerprints and iris scans form a core part of one’s bodily integrity. A requirement to part with such information as a condition precedent to availing essential services undermines basic constitutional values. While the enrolment form has a checkbox to verify consent, this is merely illusory, as failure to consent would amount to automatic exclusion from a host of benefits and services. Despite the fact that the Act mandates ‘enrolling agencies’ (discussed later) to explain the purpose of collecting demographic and biometric information at the time of enrolment, there is no legal obligation to inform residents of the extent of information being held about them. Aggregation of information within the CIDR as a result of a series of authentication requests over a long duration of time comes perilously close to creating a complete personality profile of every resident. This makes the state privy to a wide range of activities from buying an LPG cylinder to enrolling in a school, thereby drastically altering the individual-state power dynamic.

The Act further dilutes individual agency by creating statutory exceptions to how personal information can be used. Section thirty-three of the Actallows disclosure of personal information if a court (a District Judge or above) deems fit or if it is in the interest of “national security”.Both these caveats are problematic. To illustrate the first, in 2014, the CBI approached the Bombay High Court asking the UIDAI to run a fingerprint match on its database in order to enable it to identify culprits in a criminal investigation. Before the Court, the UIDAI had argued against sharing its data owing to privacy concerns. However, the Court felt differently. The Bombay High Court directed the Central Forensic and Scientific Laboratory to appoint an expert to determine if the Aadhaar database was technologically capable of matching fingerprints. This order has been stayed by the Supreme Court but the case is yet to be disposed off. The information shared with UIDAI was never envisaged to be used in criminal investigations. However, the Act explicitly allows information to be shared if a court allows it. As per UIDAI’s own statement, the system has a False Positive Identification Rate of 0.057 per cent. When applied to all residents within the country, a fingerprint search would have the effect of putting lakhs of residents under scrutiny.

Secondly, not only has the phrase “national security” not been defined in the Act (or in any other legal text for that matter), it would be the Executive’s sole prerogative to determine whether a situation qualifies for the exception. In both these situations, the individual whose information is actually at stake need not be consulted before her information is disclosed. These two exceptions are couched so broadly, that it is almost farcical to say that personal information will be used only for the authentication of one’s identity.

The Act contains broad exceptions to how personal information can be used and does not provide for any mechanism to opt-out or have one’s data deleted from the CIDR. In doing this, it diminishes one’s agency to consent, revoke consent and control how this information can be used. A society where individuals are unable to anticipate and predict the amount of information held about them and how it may be used is likely to have a chilling impact on democratic participation.

Dubious Collection and Storage of Personal Information–

The issue of consent aside, organizational mechanisms in place to collect and store personal information of over a billion residents also give rise to multiple concerns. Prior to the passing of the Act, the UIDAI hadoutsourced the process for enrolment to various private entities which possessed the requisite know-how. Sensitive personal information such as biometrics has thus been captured, stored and retained by private companies using their own technologyand without any oversight by government officials. In 2014, news reports of ‘Lord Hanuman’ having an Aadhaar card surfaced. Vijay Madan, the then Director General of the UIDAI later explained in a statement that this was ‘not a security issue’ but an instance of ‘malpractice’.The agency was then reportedly removed from the UIDAI panel. The Acthas not only given legislative sanction to the practice ofprivate companies collecting personal information, butalso does not present the affected individual with any recourse in case of a breach.

Once the data is transferred to the UIDAI, it is maintained by it in the form of the CIDR. The perils of centralized storage of personal information have long been acknowledged. Any unauthorized security breach could jeopardize the information of all residents at once. This is vastly different from a smart-card system or Apple’s Touch ID, which stores biometric information locally on the device. Under European data protection jurisprudence, storage is an important element to ascertain whether the means used are proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved by the law. If the purpose of the system is only to authenticate identity in order to plug leakages in the distribution system, the need for centralized storage must be questioned.

Aadhaar has the potential to irreversibly alter the relationship between the government and people. As the world’s second most populous country, the desire to make the distribution system more efficient is an important goal to strive for. But in this case, the trade-off between privacy and efficiency is not only undesirable but also unnecessary. Finally, the manner in which the Act was passed and the government’s submissions before the Supreme Court display a lack of good faith that only add to the already long list of concerns associated with the project.

First published here.

Original author: puneethccg

10283 - After a billion Aadhaar cards, UIDAI readies for next phase - Live Mint

After a billion Aadhaar cards, UIDAI readies for next phase

The next phase will involve constant data updates, ramping up of capacity to handle half a billion transactions a day, says UIDAI CEO AB Pandey

Aadhaar is now the mainstay of the government’s direct benefit transfer programme after the enactment of the money bill. Photo: Pradeep Gaur/Mint

New Delhi: With over a billion Aadhaar enrolments completed and empowered by a new law, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is looking to scale up operations and prepare for its next phase—one involving constant updates of data and ramping up capacity to eventually validate up to half a billion transactions daily, according to UIDAI chief executive A.B. Pandey.

As of Thursday, UIDAI has issued more than 1.03 billion Aadhaar cards, covering more than 85% of India’s population.

“Aadhaar is here to stay now that there is an Act. Earlier, when there was no Act, there may have been uncertainty over whether it will be continued with or not,” Pandey said in an interview.

Aadhaar is now the mainstay of the government’s direct benefit transfer programme after the enactment of the The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

All state benefits will now be directly transferred to intended beneficiaries’ bank accounts linked to the 12-digit biometric identity number provided by UIDAI, a step that is aimed at plugging leaks.

The Act has also removed uncertainty over a Supreme Court judgment that restricted the use of Aadhaar to select government schemes, including the cooking gas subsidy and payments under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).

“Constant updates on biometrics, photographs, demography will happen every year. These could be around 12-13 crore every year. New enrolments will be made every year as children get enrolled,” he added.

UIDAI anticipates that the larger move towards a cashless economy will increase the need for Aadhaar-based authentications wherein UIDAI will help the government and financial institutions identify a beneficiary using biometrics like fingerprint and iris recognition.

“Authentication will become a major job. Every day 40-50 lakh people are biometrically authenticated through Aadhaar and we have the capacity to scale it up to 10 crore authentications. But then tomorrow if we require 50 crore authentications, then we should be able to achieve it. This will become our major activity as payment banks come in. Then there will be ticket reservations, attendance, and Bharat Bill Payment System that will be depen- dant on this. It will become a very critical infrastructure,” Pandey said.

The UIDAI will not charge for authenticating these transactions till December 2017, but there may be a rethink after that.

“As of now, this entire authentication process is fully funded by the government. We have decided no institution will be charged anything for a service till December 2017. After this date, a decision will be taken regarding this by the chairman and the members,” Pandey said, pointing out that imposing fees on individuals will be equivalent to denying people the right to have Aadhaar.

In line with the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, a chairman and members will soon be appointed at UIDAI and the regulations will be notified in two parts to enforce the Act.

N.C. Saxena, a member of the erstwhile Planning Commission, said authenticating 10 million transactions daily may be a more realistic figure in the near term.

“Aadhaar has three major advantages. Firstly, it eliminates duplication. Secondly, benefits would become portable and lastly, the whole concept of dual pricing can be eliminated without any loss to consumers,” he said.

“Even if 99% coverage is achieved by Aadhaar, it is a satisfactory figure and UIDAI should continue to fund it on its own as charging institutions for enrolments may not work,” Saxena added.

Suranjana RoyKomal GuptaRemya Nair

10032 - The Aadhaar Act’s a done deal. What next? - Hindu Business Line

The Aadhaar Act’s a done deal. What next?

SV DIVVAAKAR

More clarity is needed on the extent and scope of commercial utilisation of the world’s largest human database

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill 2016 was passed by the Lok Sabha as a money bill. Simultaneously, the Government withdrew the National Identification Authority of India Bill languishing in Parliament since 2010.

This transition is significant, for it establishes the primary purpose of Aadhaar as not to get individuals an identity document per se, but as a financial identifier for error-free benefit transfers of expenditures covered by the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI), to rightful beneficiaries. With this, the Government has got the right to use Aadhaar enrolment as a means to deliver and track benefits.

Over a billion Aadhaar cards have been issued, digital seeding of beneficiary names with Aadhaar numbers and nominated bank accounts is well under way for over 30 central DBT schemes, and a bank-led agent-assisted payments network is being set up nationwide.

The Aadhaar piece is the kingpin, the traceable identifier that authenticates every beneficiary and credits benefits or any rightful payments into a designated Aadhaar-linked bank account. Aadhaar’s principal differentiator is biometric authentication to establish whether you are who you claim to be, and identical twins have differentiating biometrics. Thus, Aadhaar constitutes a ‘governance tool’ for the provision of public services.

However, opportunities exist for other actors — full service banks and payment banks, even merchants — to offer services built upon Aadhaar-authentication. The ready and licensed accessibility of a unitary, verified database can save huge KYC costs for individual service providers.

Greater common good?

It is important to establish whether the Aadhaar repository is a broader ‘public good’ accessible to all, like a national highway, or is it to remain an exclusive ‘e-governance’ enabler of the Government. This has implications not only for state agencies, but also for the huge digital payments market opportunity that awaits India.

The Aadhaar Act is formulated specifically for expenditures covered under the CFI. Thus, its extension to benefits transfers by State governments is not automatic. To derive its full benefit, there is need to introduce mirroring State-level legislation for expenditures not covered by the CFI.

More clarity is needed on the extent and scope of commercial utilisation of the UID database, especially sharing or licensing of the information to private parties. These opportunities are not explicit in the Act, although the concept of a Requesting Entity and Aadhaar User Agency are introduced.

Will the Aadhaar User Agreements be universally accessible to service providers? For what types of financial and non-financial services? Under what conditions and safeguards? Widening Aadhaar’s scope also brings to the fore appropriate concerns relating to personal rights, data security and related accountabilities in respect of the security of the world’s largest human database. Some stakeholders have questioned whether the world’s largest human database is secure, robust and hack-proof enough. Technical experts defend that sufficient safeguards are in place, including 2048-bit encryption, distributed and redundant storage.

The Government, particularly UIDAI, needs to: (a) allay the general concerns partly rooted in insufficient knowledge; (b) demonstrate the safeguards already addressed in the system architecture; and (c) use appropriate best-in-class technology to maintain the integrity of the database.

Repository of faith

The primary custodianship of the identity information is with the UIDAI. Even though all persons with licensed access to Aadhaar-related information are liable to keep it secure and confidential, the penalties are meagre in relation to the potential misuse. The ₹10,000-fine (1 lakh for a company) is much more dilute than under the Information Technology Act 2000, which prescribes for a transacting party compensation up to ₹5 crore for mishandling ‘sensitive personal data’.

It is imperative to affix unambiguous responsibilities for the integrity and security of the database and build appropriately strong deterrents and penalties for breach and unauthorised usage. The UIDAI’s external liabilities are not clarified in the Act but these would need to be appropriate to the potential impact from misuse.

At a minimum, there should be principles of liability cover and procedures in line with the banking and finance sector because enrolment is at the State’s behest. In essence, Aadhaar authentication is concerned with validating an individual. To what extent does non-biometric information exchanged constitute sensitive, personal information proprietary to the person, more than already available forms such as PAN card, credit card, driver licence, electoral lists, etc.?

What are the limits (one-time or cart blanche) to the prior consent for use of the identity information? Who owns the customer data? Can an individual opt out and ask for complete withdrawal and erasure of the information given? All these questions go beyond Aadhaar and can be settled only under a privacy law to which the Government should accord high priority in the parliamentary process.

Hopefully, the procedural rules under the Act will address and clarify these issues.

The writer is advisor to the Indicus Centre for Financial Inclusion

(This article was published on May 25, 2016)

9995 - Can Aadhaar be a game changer? - The Statesman

Can Aadhaar be a game changer?

Ashwani Mahajan

| 16 May, 2016

Recently Parliament passed the ‘Aadhaar’ (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill as a money bill to facilitate its safe passage. The government lacks a majority in the Rajya Sabha and thus wanted to avoid the embarrassment it faced in the case of Land Acquisition (Amendment) and GST Bills. 

Safe passage of the Aadhaar legislation is being considered as a game changer and a big success. Aadhaar was given legal status by the previous UPA government, as provision was made to give unique identity to all residents (including children) by assigning a 12 digit number. 

The UPA government could not get the Aadhaar Bill 2010 passed due to intense opposition from Bharatiya Janata Party and other opposition parties. During the Lok Sabha elections of 2014, the BJP had opposed Aadhaar. However, after coming to power the party thought it was a good proposition, as with the help of Unique Identity (UID) of residents’ financial subsidies and other public services could be targeted more efficiently. It was felt that apprehensions expressed about the assault on privacy could be taken care of by making appropriate statutory provisions. We must understand that although the 2010 Bill and the current legislation seem similar, there are several dissimilarities. 

According to Aadhaar Bill 2016, if a person has resided in the country for 182 days or more, he/she is entitled to get an Aadhaar card. A person is entitled to avail of a subsidy or a service from the government if he/she either possesses an Aadhaar card or has applied for it. These provisions were not there in the Aadhaar Bill 2010. 

According to the current legislation, information related to an holder’s fingerprints and iris scan shall not be published or displayed publicly, except for purposes specified by regulations. 

When authenticating an individual’s identity, the UID authority cannot reveal information related to iris scan and fingerprints to the entity requesting for authentication. Therefore one can say that an attempt has been made to address concerns about privacy. 

In order to grant it legal status, the Aadhaar Bill 2010 was unsuccessfully attempted by the then UPA government. Later, courts also ruled that Aadhaar could not be made an essential condition for availaing benefits. When the concept of Aadhaar card was brought in and the Unique Identity Authority (UIDAI) given statutory recognition, there was no clarity about the usage of data. For people at large, this was merely an easy-to -obtain identity card. 

Easy availability without proof of citizenship gave rise to apprehensions that this instrument may provide legitimacy to foreign intruders (especially from Bangladesh). 

Once Rajiv Gandhi, our former Prime Minister, had said that 85 per cent of the money sent to the poor did not reach the intended beneficiaries. Our experience is that the food and  petroleum subsides do not fully reach the intended beneficiaries. Apart from this, in order to provide food security to people, government has to maintain huge buffer stocks and this involves substantial budgetary support. 

According to the erstwhile Planning Commission, transfer of food subsidy of one rupee costs Rs. 3.85. Similarly the benefits of Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Programme do not fully reach intended beneficiaries. 

Fertilizer subsidy given for chemical fertilizers goes to the companies and does not reach the farmers fully. A decade back it was impossible to even think of transferring the benefits from the government directly to the targeted beneficiaries. Thanks to the techniques today, it is possible to transfer benefits of subsidy and other services directly to bank accounts of the beneficiaries without much cost. A bank account and a unique identify number overcomes this hurdle. Earlier, because of issues with opening a bank account and requirement of minimum balance, a poor person was unable to open an account. However, under the Jan-Dhan Yojna, nearly 18 crore new bank accounts have been opened with zero balance requirements. 

In fact, along with this, extremely low cost new insurance schemes have also been launched, encouraging more people to open their bank accounts. According to official figures, out of a 1.27 billion population, more than 1 billion possess Aadhaar cards; thus. 93 per cent of the adult population today has the cards. The Aadhaar number is registered in 255 million bank accounts. Persons under 18 years can also get their Aadhaar cards; however few have actually got these made. Overall thus it seems that universal coverage of Aadhaar is possible in the near future, especially after passage of Aadhaar Bill 2016. With almost universal coverage of bank accounts of households and the Aadhaar card, it has become easier to transfer benefits directly to the targeted population. 

This scheme may save billions of rupees, as now LPG subsidy, food subsidy, MNREGA wages and many other benefits can reach the targeted beneficiaries without leakage. According to the government, this could save Rs 70,000 crore for the exchequer. If this is correct, the measure could prove to be a game changer.

(The writer is associate Professor, PGDAV College, University of Delhi)

Read more at http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/can-aadhaar-be-a-game-changer/142664.html#QD2XsGDIfkVaDDqO.99

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.

9971 - More on Aadhaar Bill and Supreme court

SC cannot review Speaker's actions' - The Hindu

SC to hear Jairam Ramesh's plea on Aadhaar in July - Economic Times

Aadhaar Bill: Centre opposes Jairam Ramesh's plea in Supreme Court - Daily News & Analysis

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.