Debate on Aadhaar is about right to privacy, not money
On March 11, the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 which would give statutory backing to collection, preservation and use of biometric data of individuals under the Aadhaar scheme introduced in 2009. Though resistance to the scheme touching upon privacy had so far been mainly on account of lack of statutory backing, the legislative move has led to another controversy.
The government has sought to bypass the Rajya Sabha - where the government lacks majority - by classifying the Bill as a Money Bill.
While the Constitution envisages such a procedure for expeditious clearance of laws dealing with imposition or regulation of taxes, appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund, etc, the controversy has cropped up with the government deciding to take the Money Bill route for the Aadhaar Bill which may have to do more with privacy than with money.
The Modi government has succeeded in convincing the speaker whose decision is deemed to be final but the classification of the Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill is neither convincing nor in larger public interest.
The object of the law which aims at targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services may be laudable but this does not (as in the case of Money Bills) justify bypassing of the Rajya Sabha or immunity from scrutiny by any Parliamentary Committee, particularly when collection of biometric data raised fears of violation of the right to privacy.
With the Aadhaar scheme - introduced through a resolution by the executive in 2009 - facing stiff challenge before the Supreme Court, which has even issued interim orders against making it mandatory for disbursement of subsidies, there may have been a need to give a statutory backing to the scheme to ensure that it served the purpose of curbing pilferage of public funds, while warding off fears of violation of privacy.
The fact that the UPA version of the Aadhaar Bill - now withdrawn - had been hanging fire since 2010 may have prompted the government to take the circuitous route to law making. The move, however, raises questions as use of Aadhaar is not proposed to be limited to identification of beneficiaries of subsidy and the UPA version with similar provisions was not introduced as a Money Bill.
The "targeted delivery of subsidies" may have been highlighted as the main object of the Bill but the issue of protection of privacy cannot be ignored. To classify a Bill dealing with formation of Unique Identification Authority of India, collection and storage of biometric data of individuals, use of such data and protection of privacy, etc, as a Money Bill may not be justified as the Constituent Assembly had envisaged the fast-track route bypassing the Rajya Sabha and scrutiny by committees only for some financial provisions.
Article 110(1) states that a Bill would be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contained "only" provisions dealing with all or any of the matters specifically enumerated therein. The list includes imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such fund; the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money; or any matter incidental to any of the matters specified.
First speaker GV Mavalankar stressed that the word "only" was not "restrictive" and if a bill dealt with a tax, it could also have provisions necessary for administration of that tax.
Given the scope for inclusion of "incidental" matters, the Modi government - learning from the experience of the UPA's Bill which might have failed to garner support of lawmakers after facing strictures from a Parliamentary Committee - may have played a masterstroke by withdrawing the UPA Bill and moving a fresh one classifying it as Money Bill.
The Bill, already passed by the Lok Sabha, is unlikely to face legislative hurdles. It cannot be referred to any committee. The Rajya Sabha cannot reject it and if it does not return it within 14 days, it will be deemed to have been passed. But the smooth legislative passage may come with challenges of a different kind.
The government may have to face onslaught from Opposition parties having strong presence in the Rajya Sabha. The move may also throw up fresh challenges for the government before the Supreme Court. The activists may oppose the move with renewed vigour fearing greater threat to privacy in the absence of effective scrutiny of the law by Parliament. And the task of moulding public opinion in favour of the law in this backdrop will be all the more difficult.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)