The notion of a Unique Identification Number for persons residing in the country — to establish identity, and not as a proof of citizenship — had been introduced by the UPA government with a view to ensuring that subsidies and other remittances to an individual from the government (such as pensions, scholarships, or gas cylinder subsidy) are credited directly into a beneficiary’s bank account by linking such accounts with the UIN or Aadhaar number.
The NDA government has persisted with Aadhaar. No substantive difference seems to exist between the conception of the UPA and the NDA on this. Particularly in light of this, there seems little justification for the NDA government to have passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill of 2016 in the Lok Sabha on Friday, having moved it as a money bill in order to bypass the Rajya Sabha and avoid any discussion.
A money bill is not voted on in the Upper House. If the earlier Congress government had brought the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, there was little likelihood of the Congress opposing the measure piloted by the Union finance ministry in the Upper House, since both appear to be the same in conception and in operation detail. In any case, the government’s move is bad in principle. It latched on to a technicality, which says that a measure can be introduced as a money bill if the Speaker offers consent.
By bringing this measure as a money bill, the NDA government probably wishes to create the impression that the Congress is an irrational Opposition party. Such a reading won’t stand scrutiny as just the previous day the Congress helped pass the Real Estate Bill in the Rajya Sabha. Many have raised privacy-related concerns about Aadhaar.
Their anxiety is that when biometric data like finger-print and size and colour of the iris, in addition to a photograph and demographic data such as name and age, is with the government’s Central Identities Data Repository, the information could be illegally transmitted for purposes other than establishing the identity of a person resident in India. The bill brought by UPA, and withdrawn by the present government, had envisaged a fine of Rs 1 crore for transgressions on this count.
The present measure envisages imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of at least Rs 10 lakh. More clarity through a discussion is still called for. The SC had ruled not so long ago that a beneficiary could not be denied his government dues for non-possession of an Aadhaar number provided there were no doubts on identity. The just passed bill does not clear the air on this count. The court may have to step in once again and clarify the law.
