Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
As of April 20, 2020, there are 17,265 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in India. Since April 13, 8,113 new cases have been registered. Out of the confirmed cases so far, 2,547 patients have been cured/discharged and 543 have died. As the spread of COVID-19 has increased across India, the central government has continued to announce several policy decisions to contain the spread, and support citizens and businesses who are being affected by the pandemic. In this blog post, we summarise some of the key measures taken by the central government in this regard between April 13 and April 20, 2020.
Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, PRS.
Lockdown
Lockdown to remain in force until May 3, 2020
The lockdown has been extended until May 3, 2020 with certain relaxations taking force as of April 20, 2020. Activities that continue to remain prohibited after April 20, 2020 include: (i) all international and domestic travel except for healthcare workers and security purposes, (ii) passenger travel in trains, buses and taxis, (iii) industrial activities and hospitality services (other than those permitted), (iv) all educational institutions, and (v) all religious gatherings. Activities that are permitted after April 20, 2020 include: (i) all health services such as hospitals, clinics, and vets, (ii) agricultural operations, fisheries, and plantations, (iii) public utilities including provision of LPG and postal services, (iv) financial establishments such as non-banking financial institutions, banks and ATMs, (v) e-commerce for essential goods only, and (vi) industrial activities such as oil and gas refineries and manufacturing. Persons who do not follow the lockdown may be punishable with imprisonment up to one year and a fine, or both. States and union territories may not dilute these lockdown guidelines specified by the central government. However, they may implement stricter measures.
Certain areas within hotspots demarcated as containment zones
Hotspots refer to areas where there are large COVID-19 outbreaks or clusters with a significant spread of COVID-19. Within hotspots, certain areas may be demarcated as containment zones by the state or district administrations. There will be a strict perimeter control in the containment zones. Inward and outward movement from the containment zones will be restricted except for essential services such as medical emergencies, and law and order related activities.
Movement of stranded migrant labour
The Ministry of Home Affairs has permitted the movement of stranded migrant labour within the state in which they are stranded for work in activities permitted after the relaxation of the lockdown on April 20, 2020. These activities include industrial work, manufacturing, and construction. State governments may undertake skill mapping of migrant labourers and transport them to worksites if they are asymptomatic and willing to work. Movement of migrant labour across state borders continues to be prohibited.
Financial Measures
RBI announced additional measures to combat economic situation due to COVID-19
The International Monetary Fund’s Economic Counsellor has estimated the cumulative loss over 2020 and 2021 to global GDP due to the global economic lockdown to be around 9 trillion dollars. To combat the economic impact of COVID-19 in India, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has announced several additional measures. These include: (i) reduction in reverse repo rate from 4% to 3.75%, (ii) targeted long-term repo operations for an aggregate amount of Rs 50,000 crore, (iii) refinancing of financial institutions such as National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Small Industries Development Bank of India, and National Housing Bank for a total amount of Rs 50,000 crore to enable them to meet the financing needs of sectors they cater to.
Dividend payments by banks
In light of the economic impact of COVID-19, the RBI announced that banks shall not make any further dividend payouts from the profits pertaining to the financial year which ended on March 31, 2020. According to RBI, this will allow banks to conserve capital to retain their capacity to support the economy and absorb losses. This restriction will be reassessed based on the financial results of banks for the quarter ending in on September 30, 2020.
Short term credit to states
RBI has announced an increase in the Ways and Means Advances (WMA) limits for states and UTs. WMA limits refer to temporary loans given by the RBI to state governments. The WMA limit has been increased by 60% from the limit as on March 31, 2020, for all states and UTs. The revised limits will be in force between April 1 and September 30, 2020.
Travel and export
Travel restrictions to continue
Since the lockdown has been extended until May 3, 2020, domestic and international travel remains prohibited. All domestic and international flights will not function until May 3, 2020. Further, the Director General of Civil Aviation has specified that airlines should not start allowing ticket bookings from May 4, 2020 onwards as there has been no clearance for such activities to commence. All passenger trains will also remain cancelled until May 3, 2020. There will be a full refund for flight tickets purchased during the lockdown period for travel before May 3, 2020. Further, there will be a full refund for tickets booked for trains that were cancelled during the lockdown and cancellation of advance bookings of tickets for trains not yet cancelled.
Export of paracetamol
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has specified that formulations made of paracetamol may be freely exported from April 17, 2020 onwards. However, the export of paracetamol active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) will continue to be restricted. On March 3, 2020, the export of both formulations made of paracetamol and paracetamol APIs was restricted.
For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered its first verdict in a series of legal challenges that have been made against the Aadhaar project.[1] In the present matter, the court was examining whether a provision of the Finance Act, 2017 that made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns and applying for Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards was constitutionally valid. The court has upheld the validity of this provision, subject to a few qualifications. Below, we discuss the background of the Aadhaar project, why the courts have stepped in to examine its legality, and some aspects of the recent judgement.
What is Aadhaar about, and how is it being used?
Earlier, various identity proofs were required for access to governments benefits, subsidies and services, such as a ration card, driving license or voter id. However, as these proofs could be easily duplicated or forged, there was leakage of benefits and subsidies to ineligible beneficiaries. The Aadhaar project was initiated in 2009 to address these problems. It was envisaged as a biometric-based unique identity number that could help identify eligible persons. It was thought to be a more reliable identity proof, because it sought to authenticate a person’s identity based on their unique biometrics, like fingerprints and iris scans.1
In 2016, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 to provide legislative backing to the project. This Act allowed Aadhaar to be used for authentication purposes by the central and state government, as well as by private bodies and persons.[2]
Under its provisions, government has been issuing various notifications making Aadhaar mandatory for government projects, such as LPG subsidies and Mid-Day Meal scheme.[3] In addition, in 2017, Parliament passed the Finance Act to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns, and applying for PAN.[4]
What is the information collected under Aadhaar?
To obtain an Aadhaar number, a person is required to submit their : (i) biometric information (photograph, 10 fingerprints, scans of both irises), and (ii) demographic information (name, date of birth, gender, residential address) to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).[5] The Aadhaar number, the demographic and biometric information (called identity information) is together stored in the Central Identities Data Repository. In addition, every time a person’s identity is authenticated using Aadhaar, information related to the authentication request is recorded as well.
How is this information protected?
While India does not have a comprehensive law on privacy and data security, the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has some protections. For example, it prohibits UIDAI and its officers from sharing a person’s identity information and authentication records with anyone. It also forbids a person authenticating another person’s identity from collecting or using their information without their consent. Other protections include prohibitions against publicly displaying a person’s Aadhaar number and sharing of a person’s fingerprints and iris scans with anyone. Note that there are penalties prescribed for violation of these provisions as well.[6]
However, the Act permits information be disclosed in the interest of national security and on the order of a court.[7]
The UIDAI authority has been made responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Aadhaar database, and for laying down the security protocols for its protection.[8]
Why did the courts step in?
Even as Aadhaar is being rolled out, with about 111 crore of the 125 crore population already on the database, there are several important constitutional and legal questions around the unique identity project.[9][10] While yesterday’s judgement addresses one of these issues, other questions remain unresolved. A description of the key legal questions is provided below.
Privacy: It has been argued that the collection of identity data without adequate safeguards interferes with the fundamental right to privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty. In August 2015, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court passed an order stating that a larger bench must be formed to decide the questions of: (i) whether right to privacy is a fundamental right, and (ii) whether Aadhaar violates this right.[11] However, the court has not set up a larger bench to hear these petitions till June 2017.[12]
Mandatory vs voluntary: Another question before the court is whether Aadhaar can be made mandatory for those government benefits and services, that citizens are entitled to under law. In 2015, the Supreme Court passed some interim orders stating that: (i) Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for providing citizens with benefits and entitlements, and (ii) it can only be used for seven schemes including PDS distribution of foodgrains and kerosene, LPG distribution scheme, MGNREGA wage payments, and Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana.11
Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and the government has been issuing notifications under it to make Aadhaar mandatory for various schemes.3 In light of this, more petitions have been filed challenging these notifications.[13] Judgements on these petitions are awaited as well.
Linking Aadhaar with PAN: In 2017, after Parliament made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of tax returns and applying for PAN under the Income Tax Act, 1961, fresh petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. The new provision stated that if a person failed to link their PAN with the Aadhaar number by a date notified by the central government, their PAN will be invalidated. The government said this will decrease the problem of multiple PAN cards obtained under fictitious names and consequent tax fraud and tax evasion, because Aadhaar will ensure proper identification.1,[14] However, the petitioners argued that this may interfere with a person’s fundamental rights, such as their right to practice any profession, trade or business and right to equality. It is this question that has been addressed in the new judgement.1
Money Bill: The fourth question is related to the manner in which the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed by Parliament. The Act was passed as a Money Bill. A Money Bill only needs to be passed by Lok Sabha, while Rajya Sabha may make non-binding recommendations on it. In case of the Aadhaar Act, Rajya Sabha made some recommendations that were rejected by Lok Sabha. It has been argued before the courts that the Aadhaar Act does not qualify as a Money Bill because it contains provisions unrelated to government taxation and expenditure.13,[15]
What has the judgement held?
The Supreme Court has held that the new provision of the Income Tax Act that makes Aadhaar mandatory for income tax assessees is not in violation of the fundamental right to equality, or the fundamental right to practice one’s profession or trade. The petitioners had argued that the new provision discriminates between individual and non-individual assessees (e.g. companies or firms), because it only seeks to address tax fraud by individuals. They had also contended that Aadhaar could not address the problem of tax fraud through duplicate PANs because there was evidence to show that people had multiple Aadhaar numbers as well. The court rejected these arguments (as well as arguments related to freedom to carry on business), stating that Aadhaar is perceived as the best method of eliminating duplicate PANs, and therefore there is reasonable rationale behind linking the PAN database with Aadhaar.1
The court decided not to examine questions related to human dignity and privacy, on the ground that issues affecting Article 21 will be examined by a larger bench to be set up by the court. However, it granted relief to people, who have not enrolled for Aadhaar, by stating that their PAN cards cannot be invalidated till the time when the matter is finally decided by such a bench.
This, in effect, means that the debate around constitutionality and legality of the Aadhaar project will remain ongoing till a judgement is finally pronounced on whether Aadhaar is in violation of right to privacy under Article 21.
[1] Binoy Viswam vs Union of India, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 of 2017, http://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/jud/wc24717_Sign.pdf.
[2] Sections 7, 8 and 57, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[3] Unstarred Question No. 4126, Lok Sabha, March 27, 2017; Unstarred Question No. 1209, Lok Sabha, February 9, 2017; S.O. 371 (E), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, February 8, 2017, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Magazine/Document/1_211_1_aadhaar-notification.pdf; S.O. 369 (E), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, February 8, 2017, http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/174076.pdf.
[4] The Finance Bill, 2017, http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-finance-bill-2017-4681/.
[5] Regulations 3 and 4, Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
[6] Sections 28-47, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[7] Section 33, Section 23, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[8] Section 23, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[9] “UIDAI achieves 111 crore mark on Aadhaar generation; Unique identity covers over 99 percent adult residents of India”, Press Information Bureau, January 27, 2017.
[10] Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012; Jairam Ramesh vs Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 231 of 2016; S.G. Vombatkere and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) 797/ 2016; “Aadhaar: What are the pending cases before the Supreme Court”, Indian Express, May 31, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/aadhaar-what-are-the-pending-cases-before-the-supreme-court/.
[11] Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, September 23, 2013, August 11, 2015, October 15, 2015.
[12] “The Aadhaar/ PAN Judgement”, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/the-aadhaarpan-judgment/.
[13] “Aadhaar: What are the pending cases before the Supreme Court”, Indian Express, May 31, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/aadhaar-what-are-the-pending-cases-before-the-supreme-court/.
[14] Uncorrected Lok Sabha Debates, March 22, 2017, Pg. 240, http://164.100.47.193/newdebate/16/11/22032017/Fullday.pdf.
