Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
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.
Between the last time Parliament met in March 2020 and the ongoing Monsoon session (a period of nearly six months), the government issued 941 notifications across sectors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also announced a Rs 20 lakh crore economic package to improve the state of the economy and provide relief to those affected by the nationwide lockdown. In addition, the government also proposed long-term policy changes during this period in sectors such as agriculture, economy, and education.
One of the key roles of a Member of Parliament (MP) is to hold the government accountable for its policies and actions. Parliamentary questions are one of the key instruments MPs use to exercise this role. Questions help MPs seek information from the government on matters of public importance and on the status of implementation of its policies and programmes.
However, in view of the prevailing extraordinary situation due to COVID-19, both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have suspended their Question Hour, which would have allowed MPs to seek oral responses from Ministers and ask follow-up questions. However, unstarred questions are admitted, for which written answers are provided.
This post provides an overview of the government’s response to some of the key questions raised by MPs during the first five days (September 14, 2020, to September 18, 2020) of the session.
Unstarred questions in the Monsoon session
A total of 1,950 unstarred questions have been asked in the first five days of the Monsoon session of the Parliament (1,150 questions in Lok Sabha and 800 questions in Rajya Sabha). The Ministries in focus for the questions were: Health (154 questions), Agriculture (127 questions), Education (104 questions), Finance (96 questions), and Railways (80 questions).
Questions ranged from the impact of the lockdown to strategy for vaccine procurement, to the status of the programmes announced to alleviate COVID related issues. Besides COVID-19, there were questions around India-China trade, locust attacks, and custodial deaths.
On COVID-19 testing and vaccine strategy
Testing data and Health infrastructure: In response to a question, the government informed that India is conducting nearly 10-11 lakh tests every day and so far, a total of 6.05 crore samples have been tested for COVID-19. Nearly 40% of the confirmed cases are persons between the age of 26-44.
To improve health capacity, as of Sep 15, a total of 15,360 COVID treatment facilities have been created with:
Vaccine development: The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation has granted permission for conduct of clinical trials in the country to the following: (i) Bharat Biotech International Ltd. and Cadila Healthcare (these are in phase 1 and phase 2 of trials), and (ii) Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd (for vaccine developed by University of Oxford/AstraZeneca - this is in Phase 3, or advanced phase, of the trials).
The government is also exploring the possibility of cooperation with Russia for advancing the COVID-19 vaccine in India.
Health insurance: The Ministry noted that data on the number of healthcare workers who are infected by COVID-19 or who have lost lives during COVID duty is not maintained at the central level. As per data from the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Insurance Package, a total of 155 medical staff, including 64 doctors, have died due to COVID-19. The scheme provides an insurance cover of Rs 50 lakh (including loss of life) to healthcare providers, including community health workers, who may have come in direct contact of COVID-19 patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this.
Under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme, a total of 4.03 lakh hospitalisations have been registered (and authorised) towards the treatment of COVID-19. Under Ayushman Bharat, the government provides health cover of five lakh rupees per family per year, for secondary and tertiary care to around 10.7 crore vulnerable families.
Impact on other health services: In light of COVID-19, that there has been a 19.4% drop in Hepatitis-B birth doses administered and a 31% drop in vaccination sessions held in health facilities and outreach sessions from April-June 2020 as compared to the same period last year. Similarly, there has been a drop of 23.9% in institutional delivery in the April-June 2020 quarter as compared to the same period last year.
Impact of COVID-19 on Indian economy
Trade: Responding to a question on the impact of COVID on exports, the government provided the following data:
India-China trade: Members also raised questions on the impact of COVID and the border issue with Ladakh on Indo-China trade. The government held that it has taken steps to balance the trade with China by increasing exports and reducing import dependence. The trade deficit with China during April-June 2020 was USD 5.5 billion as compared to USD 13.1 billion during the same period last year.
Table 1: Trade deficit with China (in billion dollars)
|
Year |
2016-17 |
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
April - June 2019 |
April - June 2020 |
|
Export |
10.17 |
13.33 |
16.75 |
16.61 |
4.16 |
5.53 |
|
Import |
61.28 |
76.38 |
70.31 |
65.26 |
17.26 |
11.01 |
|
Total Trade |
71.45 |
89.71 |
87.07 |
81.87 |
21.42 |
16.55 |
|
Trade Deficit |
-51.11 |
-63.04 |
-53.56 |
-48.64 |
-13.1 |
-5.48 |
Sources: Unstarred Question No. 647, Lok Sabha, answered on September 16, 2020; PRS.
With regard to the import of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (bulk drugs), bulk drugs account for nearly 63% of total pharmaceutical imports in India as per government data. Of these, 68% of the bulk drugs imported by India in 2019-20 were from China.
Civil aviation: The government informed that the revenue of Indian carriers was down by nearly 86% during April-June 2020, as compared to the same period last year.
Table 2: Impact of COVID-19 on the civil aviation sector
|
Indicator |
Previously |
Now |
% Change |
|
Revenue related |
April-June 2019 |
April-June 2020 |
|
|
Revenue of Indian carriers |
Rs 25,517 crore |
Rs 3,651 crore |
-85.7% |
|
Revenue of Air India |
Rs 7,066 crore |
Rs 1,531 crore |
-78.3% |
|
Revenue of Airport Operators |
Rs 5,745 crore |
Rs 894 crore |
-84.4% |
|
Employment related |
March 31, 2020 |
July 31, 2020 |
|
|
Employment at airlines |
74,887 |
69,589 |
-7.1% |
|
Employment at airports |
67,760 |
64,514 |
-4.8% |
|
Employment at ground handling agencies |
37,720 |
29,254 |
-22.4% |
|
Employment at Cargo operators |
9,555 |
8,538 |
-10.6% |
|
Traffic related |
March-July 2019 |
March-July 2020 |
|
|
Total domestic traffic |
5,85,30,038 |
1,20,84,952 |
-79.4% |
|
Total international traffic |
93,45,469 |
11,55,590 |
-87.6% |
Sources: Unstarred Question No. 872, Lok Sabha, answered on September 17, 2020; PRS.
Vande Bharat Mission: The Vande Bharat Mission was launched on May 7, 2020 to facilitate the return of Indian nationals stranded in various countries. As of September 10, 2020, a total of 13,74,237 Indians have returned to India and the total cost incurred for this effort was Rs 22.5 crore. Of these, about 3 lakh people were working outside India. The government stated that SWADES (Skilled Workers Arrival Database for Employment Support) initiative has been launched to conduct a skill mapping exercise of the returning citizens under the Vande Bharat Mission.
Metro rail: Due to the lockdown, metro services in different cities came to a halt. This has led to a loss of Rs 1,609 crore for the Delhi Metro. The loss incurred due to the halting of the other metros was: Rs 170 crore for Bengaluru Metro, Rs 90 crore for Lucknow Metro, Rs 80 crore for Chennai Metro, and Rs 34 crore for Kochi Metro.
On Shramik special trains and Vande Bharat Mission
Railways revenue: As of August 2020, the total revenue of Railways was Rs 41,844 crore, which is a decline of 42% over the corresponding period last year. Of this, Rs 39,648 crore (95%) was freight revenue. During April to August 2020, the passenger traffic was 1.3% of the traffic in the corresponding period last year, and the freight traffic was 86.7% of the traffic seen in the corresponding period last year. The total amount of refund made to passengers due to cancellation of trains booked till April 14, 2020 (for the journey period between March 22, 2020 and August 12, 2020) was Rs 3,371 crore.
Special trains: Several members asked questions about the Shramik special trains, the number of migrant labourers who returned to their home states, and the loss of revenue to railways due to restrictions on travel and movement. The government responded that 4,621 shramik special trains were run from May 1 to August 31, 2020, which transported 63 lakh passengers across the country. Based on the data provided by states, 97 persons passed away while travelling on Shramik special trains (as of September 9, 2020). A total fare of Rs 433 crore was collected from the state governments for running these special trains.
The government also started other special trains (15 pairs of Rajdhani Express and special trains for examinations such as JEE and NEET). The average occupancy in these trains (from May 12 to August 31, 2020) was around 82%.
On Migrant labourers, relief measures and MGNREGS
A total of 1.05 crore migrant workers have returned to their home state till now (maximum to Uttar Pradesh, followed by Bihar, West Bengal, and Rajasthan). State-wise details are listed in the table below.
Table 3: Number of migrant workers who have returned to home-state (as of September 14, 2020)
|
State |
Workers who have returned to the state |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
32,49,638 |
|
Bihar |
15,00,612 |
|
West Bengal |
13,84,693 |
|
Rajasthan |
13,08,130 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
7,53,581 |
|
Jharkhand |
5,30,047 |
|
Punjab |
5,15,642 |
|
Assam |
4,26,441 |
|
Kerala |
3,11,124 |
|
Maharashtra |
1,82,990 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
72,145 |
Sources: Unstarred Question No. 197, Lok Sabha, answered on September 14, 2020; PRS.
Responding to a question on whether free grains under the Aatma Nirbhar Scheme had reached the migrant workers, the government stated that no data on the number of migrants/stranded migrant persons across the country was available with the Department of Food Distribution and that the responsibility of identification of beneficiaries under this scheme was entrusted with states. The government informed that states have indicated about 2.8 crore migrant worker beneficiaries. As of August 31, 2020, food grains have been distributed to 2.67 crore of the identified beneficiaries for the months of June and July 2020.
MGNREGS: On whether the migrant labourers have been provided jobs under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the government said that there is no provision to register a job cardholder categorized as a migrant labourer in the card in the scheme. It stated that a total of 86.82 lakh new job cards have been issued this year so far, against a total of 64.96 lakh cards issued during the same period last year. The employment provided under the scheme was nearly 100% higher for the months of June and July 2020, as compared to the corresponding months in 2019. The total demand (from April 2020 to September 12, 2020) for employment under the scheme was 22.5 crore persons, a 39% increase from 16.2 crore persons for 2019-20 (during the same period).
EPF withdrawal: In March 2020, as part of the relief package, the government increased the withdrawal limit from the Employee’s Provident Fund (EPF) accounts. In areas declared to be affected by an epidemic or pandemic, members are permitted to withdraw three months’ salary or 75% of the amount lying in the member’s PF account, whichever is lesser. The government stated that a total of Rs 39,403 crore has been withdrawn from EPF from March 25, 2020 to August 31, 2020. The withdrawal was highest in the states of Maharashtra (Rs 7,838 crore), Karnataka (Rs 5,744 crore), and Tamil Nadu (Rs 4,985 crore).
Other questions
Locust attack: Several members sought to know whether the locust attacks caused damage to crops and whether the government has provided any compensation to the affected farmers. The Ministry of Agriculture responded that the locust incursions were reported in the 10 states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. The Rajasthan government has reported crop damage of 33% or more in nearly 3,400-hectare area. Haryana has reported below 33% crop damage in 6,166-hectare area. No damage was reported in Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Bihar. On compensation, the government stated that pest attack has been notified as a natural disaster and states could provide relief under the State Disaster Response Fund. However, no state government has reported any data yet on the distribution of relief to affected farmers.
Functioning of virtual courts: The Ministry of Law and Justice informed that 11,93,046 hearings were done by video conferencing between March 24, 2020 and July 15, 2020 by district and subordinate courts across India. Further, it stated that to handle challenges related to COVID-19, the government has allocated nearly Rs 30 crore for providing video conferencing equipment and facilitating help desk counters for e-filing in various court complexes
Custodial deaths: The government informed that a total of 1,697 persons died under police/ judicial custody, and a total of 112 cases were registered as encounter deaths (from April 2019 to March 2020). State-wise details are noted below in Table 4 for select states (they comprise 75% of the total custodial and encounter deaths in 2019-20). On whether the government is considering a legislation to prevent the torture of individuals by police and public officials, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed that police and public order are state subjects and there is no proposal to bring a legislation in this regard.
Table 4: Custodial deaths and Encounter deaths across select states (April 2019-March 2020)
|
State |
Custodial deaths |
Encounter deaths |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
403 |
26 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
157 |
3 |
|
West Bengal |
122 |
1 |
|
Bihar |
110 |
5 |
|
Punjab |
99 |
1 |
|
Maharashtra |
94 |
3 |
|
Rajasthan |
84 |
2 |
|
Haryana |
77 |
1 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
69 |
3 |
|
Chhattisgarh |
59 |
39 |
Sources: Unstarred Question No. 292, Lok Sabha, answered on September 15, 2020; PRS
