Critique Analysis of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016
Critique Analysis of the Aadhar
(Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Bill, 2016
On
11th March, 2016 the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery
of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. The bill
was introduced by Finance Minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley as a money bill. Now a
question that comes into one’s mind is whether the act could be brought in as a
money bill? No, the act
could not be brought in as a money bill as it does not fulfill the requirements
for a money bill but it was said that
Aadhaar bill was to create a system for providing subsidies and as the
provision relates to the government expenditure. But it has several other
provisions so it doesn’t meet the requirements of having only the provisions
mentioned in article 110(1).
Article
110 of the constitution itself says that those bills will be regarded as money
bills which have provisions related to taxation, borrowing etc. constitution
mentions that those bills which contains provisions other than these bills will
not be regarded as money bills which means that a money bill should only
contain matters listed in article 110 and not any other issue. In this way
speaker’s decision is erroneous. Aadhaar bill contains other provisions
facilitating use of Aadhaar credentials for purposes (not incidental) other
than the subsidies disbursal.
The
article 110(3) of the constitution is misused by the speaker of the Lok Sabha
as Aadhaar bill is not a money bill according to article 110(1). Aadhaar bill
cannot fit in the conditions for treating it as a money bill. Constitution
clearly provides what constitutes a money bill or financial bill.
Aadhaar
is a 12-digit unique identification number issued to an Indian resident by the
UIDAI on the behalf of government of India. The number serves as a proof of
one’s address and other important details. The Aadhaar technology relies on the
biometric information of the person. Biometric includes iris recognition and
fingerprints merely a tool to protect the interest of recipients and to
safeguard the leakage of funds from the contingency fund of India. It does not
deal with the purpose or frequency of withdrawals.
SUPREME COURT OPINION
In
February 2017, the SC judicial bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar and
Justice NV Ramana observed merit in the petition and said, “Yes, we have identified the role
and authority of the speaker. But if the speaker says blue is green, we will
ask the speaker to say it is blue…that we will set right.”
In
the case of Raja ram pal v. Hon’ble speaker, loksabha & ors (2007),
In
this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although parliament is supreme
proceedings which are found to be suffer from substantive illegality or
unconstitutionality cannot be held protected from judicial scrutiny by article 122.
In
the case of kihoto hollhan v. zachillhu & ors (1992)
In
the case Supreme Court held that though the speaker of the house hold a pivotal
position in a parliamentary democracy, the decision of the speaker (while
adjudicating on disputed disqualification) is subject to judicial review that
may look into the correctness of the decision. Thus, the decision of the
loksabha speaker to pass and certify a bill as a money bill is not immune from
judicial review.
In
the case of keshav Singh v. speaker, legislative assembly (1964)
In
this case it was observed that if the parliamentary procedure is illegal and
unconstitutional it would be open to scrutiny in a court of law and could be a
ground for interference by courts under article 32 though the immunity from judicial
interference under this article is confined to the matters of irregularity of
procedure.
In
the case of Jairam ramesh v. union of India (2016)
In
March 2016 loksabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan allowed the passage of the Aadhaar
act, 2016 as a money bill amid protest by the opposition. although article 110
sub-clause(3) of the Indian constitution explicitly stated that the decision of
the lok sabha speaker in matters of whether a bill is a money bill or not
“shall be final”, former union minister jairam ramesh filed a PIL against the
government on passing the Aadhaar bill
as a money without consulting the Rajya Sabha.
CASE LAWS OF SUPREME
COURT
Court
in the cases of Raja ram pal v. Hon’ble speaker, loksabha & ors and kihoto hollhan
v. zachillhu & ors has laid down the principle by stating that
immunity extends only to matters of procedural irregularity and not an
illegality.
“despite
article 122 prohibiting courts to inquiring into the proceedings of the
parliament SC has in earlier judgments relating to schedule x- anti defection
law has put similar provisions of finality of speaker under the purview of
judicial review if it goes against the constitutional mandate and natural
justice. “
CONCLUSION
On
the basis of my personal experience I would like to conclude that there is need
to have uniform data protection law that Aadhaar act impose penalty in the case
of unauthorized access or use however the penalty imposed is very less in
comparison to the importance of information. This penalty will hardly act as a
deterrent. While on the other hand UIDA has given exclusive power to make
complaints that courts cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under
the act unless a complaint is made by the UIDA or a person authorized by it.
This may lead to the conflict of interest and sometimes there may be a
situation in which members or employees of the UIDA are responsible for a
security breach. This act has been failed to guarantee protection to the
information.
👍 Nice
ReplyDelete