LS passes Aadhaar bill in original form

Lok Sabha rejected five amendments proposed by Rajya Sabha and passed the bill in its original form

Aadhaar is set to receive statutory backing after Parliament passed a bill that will make the unique identification project the central plank for delivering government subsidies and welfare benefits.

Only the President’s signature is now required for the bill to become law, which will enable the government to reset the subsidy regime and deliver state benefits directly to their intended beneficiaries, plugging leakages.

The money will go into the bank or post-office accounts of beneficiaries linked to the 12-digit biometric identity number provided by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

Late on Wednesday evening, the Lok Sabha rejected five amendments proposed by the Rajya Sabha earlier in the day and passed the bill in its original form.

The lower House passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) bill, 2016, as a money bill on Friday.

A money bill cannot be rejected by the Rajya Sabha, which can only suggest changes the Lok Sabha is free to reject. The ruling National Democratic Alliance is vastly outnumbered by the opposition in the upper House.

The opposition has voiced concerns that the privacy of individuals may be compromised by Aadhaar and that a provision that allows the government to access the biometric information in cases pertaining to national security may be misused.

The amendments to the bill moved by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh sought to replace the term ‘national security’ with ‘public emergency and public safety’ and limit the use of Aadhaar to delivery of subsidies. He also suggested that the use of Aadhaar be made optional so that subsidies can be accessed even without the unique identity number.

Key digital and social security schemes of the government are critically dependent on the use of Aadhaar, which will help better targeting of beneficiaries for delivery of subsidies, budgeted at Rs.2.5 trillion in the next fiscal year. It will also be key to India managing its transition to a cashless economy.

Statutory backing will address the uncertainty surrounding the project after the Supreme Court restricted the use of the Aadhaar number until a constitution bench delivers its verdict on a number of cases challenging the mandatory use of Aadhaar in government schemes, and rules on the issue of privacy violation.

“The entire controversy is political in nature. The problem is ensuring subsidies reach the poor,” said former civil servant N.C. Saxena, a member of the erstwhile Planning Commission. “It has nothing to do with the law. A large number of poor are not part of the Aadhaar programme. That is the main problem,” he said. “We need to see better implementation. Merely passing the law is not enough,” Saxena added.

Opposition parties cut across party lines on Wednesday to criticize the government’s decision to present the draft law as a money bill—a move they alleged undermined the legislative competence and authority of Rajya Sabha.

During the debate in the Rajya Sabha, Ramesh said the Congress supports the bill but would like some changes made because the bill in its current form gives “sweeping powers in the name of national security”.

“Information should be shared only for public emergency and public safety,” he said. He expressed concerns that current provisions could be interpreted in a way that would enable collection of DNA information by UIDAI.

“Whatever information the UIDAI wants to collect, it should be empowered by Parliament. No suo moto authority should be granted to UIDAI. In order to remove ambiguity, it should be part of the law,” he said.

He also sought removal of a clause that allows private agencies to use Aadhaar.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley, while responding to concerns raised by opposition members, said the government had made several improvements to the original version introduced by the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime in order to address privacy concerns.

“The privacy provisions that we have included in the bill are much stronger than what was included in the UPA’s bill,” he said.

Jaitley pointed out that there was an absolute bar on sharing of core biometric information and that it can be used only for generation of Aadhaar number and authentication.

He also pointed out that lower courts cannot order disclosure of information. In addition, disclosure of information requests will be specially directed to a joint secretary-level government official. Every decision this official makes will be reviewed by a committee headed by the cabinet secretary.

On Ramesh’s suggestion of replacing the term national security with ‘public emergency and public safety’, Jaitley said, “There is no concept of a public emergency. It is a vague phrase which would lead to governments having greater power to encroach on privacy. National security is a much narrower definition,” he said.

Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said the bill’s definition of national security was nebulous.

“How are cases of sedition registered against students of universities; how is someone labelled anti-national; what will be added later and who will it be shared with? These are matters that are serious encroachments to privacy,” he said.

Yechury opposed the government’s decision to introduce the draft as a money bill, noting that even the job guarantee scheme and the Food Security Act entailed withdrawal of funds from the consolidated fund of India but legislation for those had not been tabled in the form of money bills.

#IASPRELIMS2016 #IASEXAM #UPSCEXAM #CIVILSERVICESEXAM #IASMAINSEXAM2016 #UKPSC #UKPCS #UTTARAKHANDPCSEXAM #PCSEXAM