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 11^th 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.