UJWALA UPPALURI - The Aadhaar programme violates democratic process and constitutional rights
The Modi government is defying the SC, whose standing judgements make it clear that enrolment into Aadhaar is “purely voluntary.” But it is tax-paying Indians who now face a choice between obtaining an Aadhaar card to comply or being ascribed the status of a criminal.
It is difficult to understate the scale and significance of Aadhaar, the government’s programme for a national identification card for every Indian. More than one billion Indians have already been enrolled, and their personally identifiable information—biometrics, bank-account and demographic details—are already held in a government database, the legality and security of which is contested. Disagreements about Aadhaar are disagreements about no less than what it means to be a citizen in a democratic state, as the unfolding litigation challenging the Aadhaar programme attests.
In defence of the move to make Aadhaar
mandatory for the filing of tax returns, the government proffers the argument
that it would reduce tax evasion. If this is true, its position would
amount to the unconscionable one of privileging expedience in the pursuit of
its interests—presumably law enforcement in this instance—over respecting the
fundamental freedoms that democracies themselves are constructed to preserve.
Every arm of the Indian state exists at the pleasure of, and in service to
Indian citizens. The Aadhaar programme suggests that the government is losing
sight of this fact.
It is difficult to understate the scale and significance of Aadhaar, the government’s programme for a national identification card for every Indian. More than one billion Indians have already been enrolled, and their personally identifiable information—biometrics, bank-account and demographic details—are already held in a government database, the legality and security of which is contested. Disagreements about Aadhaar are disagreements about no less than what it means to be a citizen in a democratic state, as the unfolding litigation challenging the Aadhaar programme attests.
Several petitions
challenging Aadhaar are pending before the Supreme Court. Until the court
pronounces its final judgment on the programme’s legality, this much is clear
from its previous orders: enrolment into Aadhaar is purely voluntary. This ruling has been honoured in its
repeated breach by the government. The latest breach has been in the passage of
an amended Finance Bill, 2017, which would make an Aadhaar number mandatory for
the filing of tax returns.
The cases before the
court raise two classes of questions about the Aadhaar programme and the
Aadhaar Act, which enables it. Both classes relate to their compatibility with
the Constitution of India, in terms of its text as well as the value
commitments that the text necessarily implies. Chief among these is a
commitment to our republican form, which requires a recognition that sovereign
power vests not in any political party or constitutional functionary but rather
in us all, as citizens. At play in the Aadhaar cases are all the corollaries of
this commitment: that the government, parliament and courts are mere custodians
of political power, that Indian citizens are not subjects, and that they are
entitled to a government that is transparent, accountable and solicitous of
citizens’ rights above all else. The first class of
questions before the court relates to matters of the everyday life of a
democratic government and how it ought to look. These arguments posit that
Aadhaar conflicts with both constitutional structure and process. They rest on
the notion that only democratic processes can yield democratic and
constitutionally defensible outcomes. They are a call for a government that
operates in good faith.
The most recent
impetus for concerns in this class is the passage of the Finance Bill, 2017 - a
money bill - in the Lok Sabha on 30 March. Money bills are a special species of
legislation. Article 110 of the Constitution leaves no doubt as
to their contents: a money bill “contains provisions only dealing with” matters
relating to public finances. The same provision empowers the speaker of the Lok
Sabha to make the final decision in instances where any question as to whether
a bill has the character of a money bill arises. Article 109 of the Constitution, which lays out
the procedure through which a money bill is passed, gives the Rajya Sabha
little effective say: a money bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha, and
unlike ordinary legislation, the Rajya Sabha can only recommend amendments to
the bill, which the Lok Sabha is free to disregard if it chooses.
Each year, the Union’s
budgets are passed this way. This year’s finance bill included 40 amendments, none of which had any
discernible link to public finances in the way that Article 110 envisions.
Among these was the amendment that would make Aadhaar mandatory for filing tax
returns and applying for a Permanent Account Number (PAN) card. Almost exactly
a year ago, the Aadhaar Act was also pushed through the parliament as a
money bill amid protests by the opposition. (A challenge to the speaker’s decision to certify the
Aadhaar Bill as a money bill is presently pending before the Supreme Court.).. read more:
