EDITORIALS

Aadhaar as a Money Bill

Breaking parliamentary rules to legislate Aadhaar is a dangerous move.

n a belated move to confer legitimacy on the Aadhaar programme, carried out till now without any legislative provision,
the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) introduced
the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. Questions and concerns
on its contents apart, the fact that the government chose to define it as a money bill and thus ensure its passage as a law by
only having to secure majority support in the lower house raises
concerns that matter to the constitutional scheme. That successive regimes went about issuing unique identification (UID) numbers all these yearsand claim that about 95% of the adult
population have already been coveredraises questions of
whether we remain a constitutional democracy.
Such a statement may sound extreme. But given the impunity
with which union governments have gone about this massive
project without parliamentary approval, what else can one infer
but that of brazen disregard for constitutional mores. Furthermore, in this instance, the Lok Sabha speakers decision, exercising powers under Article 110(3) of the Constitution to allow
its introduction as a money bill is indeed faulty.
This time the government is doing what it attempted previously in 2015 but then backtracked. In last years Union Budget,
it sneaked in a provision on the monetary policy committee
of the Reserve Bank of India in the Finance Bill 2015, a money
bill. In the face of opposition, the government scrapped that
provision after introduction of the bill. This time it hopes to
go further.
The decision is faulty not only by the spirit of the Constitution, it is even so by the letter of the law. Article 110(2), which
shall form the basis for the speaker arriving at a decision on
whether a bill is a money bill or not, was clearly overlooked by
the current Speaker Sumitra Mahajan. To paraphrase, the provision holds that a bill shall not be deemed to be a money bill by
reason only that it provides for augmenting revenue collection
or disbursal of money or services. This, incidentally, is the

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

MARCH 12, 2016

vol lI no 11

argument raised by the government too, that Aadhaar will

save money. But, the Aadhaar project has implications for the
rights of citizens, including the right to privacy since the UID
project, even according to its votaries, addresses concerns of
national security.
The discourse hitherto on this has brought out two issues.
One, to effect a paradigmatic shift from the welfare state
paradigm to an enabling state. Two, that this project was
initially conceived as a security requirement in the aftermath
of the Kargil war by the then NDA government and this concept
is indeed what is behind the 12-digit UID number; each individual is given a unique number which is stored in a centralised database linked to that individuals demographic and
biometric information. Anyone who has merely read the newspaper will know of the inordinate interest of the Ministry of
Home Affairs and the various intelligence agencies in the
Aadhaar card. Clearly, the Aadhaar project is not merely one
about facilitating direct cash transfers but has implications for
the constitutional guarantees of life and liberty, including the
right to privacy.
It may be that this right is not absolute and that like all other
fundamental rights, the citizens right to privacy may be
restricted. Such an agreement, however, will have to be based
on a harmonious interpretation of the law for which the arguments for and against imposing such a restriction will have to
be debated. The forum for such a debate is Parliament, particularly in times like the present, when political consensus has
been so fragmented. To keep the Rajya Sabha out through a
veritable sleight of hand may appear politically expedient to
the present government but is a dangerous precedent which
weakens parliamentary democracy. For all these reasons and
many more, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and
Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, should not
have been treated as a money bill if the idea of India as a constitutional democracy is to be preserved.