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.

As of April 22, 2020, Sikkim does not have any confirmed cases of COVID-19.  As of April 21, 2020, 87 samples have been sent for testing from Sikkim.  Of these, 80 have tested negative for COVID-19, and the results of seven samples are awaited.  The state has announced several policy decisions to prevent the spread of the virus and provide relief for those affected by it.  In this blog post, we summarise some of the key measures taken by the Sikkim state government in this regard as of April 22, 2020.  

Response before national lockdown

On March 16, the state government responded to the growing number of suspected cases in India by notifying certain directions to be applicable till April 15, 2020.  These included: (i) banning the entry of all domestic and foreign tourists in to the state, (ii) closing all educational institutes and anganwadis, (iii) prohibiting the use of recreational facilities such as, casinos, gym, and cinemas, (iii) closing three out of five check posts (border opening) for all visitors in to the state and opening the other two only for medical and police teams, and (iv) banning private industries from getting migrant workers from outside the state and avoiding large concentration of workers at one place.

On March 19, assembly of more than five people was prohibited in the state until April 15, 2020.  The government ordered the suspension of all non-essential work on March 19.  The supply of all essential commodities such as food grains, vegetables, sanitisers and masks was allowed.  Further, the formation of a sub-divisional task force to detect suspected cases was ordered.  

On March 22, the government regulated intra-state movement of private vehicles, two-wheelers and taxis on an odd-even basis (allowing plying of vehicles on alternate days as per the number plate) until April 15, 2020.  The government also reduced the budget session of the state to two days on March 23. 

On March 25, the central government announced on a 21-day country-wide lockdown till April 14.  During the lockdown the state government took various steps for physical containment, health, financial and welfare measures.  These are detailed below.

Measures taken during lockdown

Movement Restrictions

Certain movement restrictions were put across the state.   These include:

  • Movement of vehicles: Inter-state movement of vehicles was restricted to vehicles transporting essential goods.  These vehicles need to have a permanent pass for such movement.  On April 5, intra-state movement of vehicles was restricted to government officials, transportation of essential commodities, banks and PSUs, and media and cable networks.   Their passes are valid only from 8am to 5pm.
     
  • Validity of passes:  The state government noted that a large number of vehicle passes were issued due to various reasons.  On April 14, the government ordered that all passes issued by District Magistrates, and other Departmental Authorities (except those issued by the police, health department and forest and environment department) will be invalid from April 14.  New passes will be issued only by Magistrates and Block Development Officers.  
     
  • Securing borders:  In view of the COVID-19 pandemic and to check unauthorised cross-border infiltration from China, Nepal, and Bhutan, the state government secured all porous borders along the Rangpo river and other vulnerable areas.

Essential Goods and Services

On April 5, the state government issued an order requiring establishments such as shops, hotels, private offices, and commercial establishments to remain closed until April 15.  Establishments which were permitted to remain functional include law enforcement agencies, health services, electricity and water services, petrol pumps, and media.  Shops for PDS, groceries, vegetables, milk and, medicines were only allowed remain open from 9 am to 4 pm.

  • Valid prescription and label required:  On March 25, the state prohibited the sale of hand sanitisers without drug manufacturing licence label.  It also prohibited sale of N95 masks to general public without valid prescription. 
     
  • Transit camps:  On April 17, the state government notified that transit camps (temporary accommodation) will be set up for drivers and helpers of vehicles carrying essential goods.

Health Measures

On March 31, the Sikkim government identified and set up dedicated isolation wards and treatment centres in the STNM hospital, Sochakgang as a precautionary measure.  The government also issued directions for citizens to avoid getting infected by coronavirus.  These included social distancing, and maintaining proper hygiene.  

On April 18, the state government made it mandatory for all the public, students, teachers, and government employees, to install the Aarogya Setu application.  The government of India launched a mobile app called ‘Aarogya Setu’ to enable people to assess the risk of catching COVID-19 on April 2, 2020.   The app uses Bluetooth and Global Positioning System (GPS) based device location for contact tracing in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. 

Welfare Measures

  • Economic relief package:  On March 27, an economic relief package was announced by the state government.   This included free ration in specific quantities (other than the PDS entitlement) to needy families in rural and urban areas, daily wagers, migrant labourers, casual workers, and stranded people.  Further, the government announced an additional incentive wage of Rs 300/day for tea workers at Temi-tea estate. 
     
  • Food distribution:  On April 16, the government announced that Asha workers will be given Rs 5,000 as honorarium for work done during COVID-19.  Further, it ordered the food and civil supply department to compile a list of all the left out beneficiaries for distribution of food relief packages.
     
  • Relief to stranded patients:  On April 16, the government announced that a financial relief of Rs 30,000 will be provided to each patient undergoing treatment and stranded outside Sikkim from the Chief Minister's relief fund.
     
  • Relief for casual workers:  On March 30, the Sikkim government issued directions to all contractors/ employers to pay migrant and casual labourers on the due date without any deductions due to the lockdown.  The state government also provided grants worth Rs 2,000 to the 7,836 registered building and other construction workers in the state.
     
  • Relief for stranded students:  On March 29, the state announced that it will provide Rs 5,000 to each state student stranded outside Sikkim during the nationwide lockdown.

Certain relaxations after 20th April 

On April 14, the nation-wide lockdown was further extended till May 3, 2020.  On April 15, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines outlining select activities which will be permitted from April 20 onwards.  These activities include health services, agriculture related activities, certain financial sector activities, operation of Anganwadis, MNREGA works, and cargo movement.  Further, subject to certain conditions, commercial and private establishments, industrial establishments, government offices, and construction activities will also be permitted.  The Sikkim government took the following steps in the same line.

  • On April 19, the state government gave directions to all government and PSU offices to work with up to one-third of their actual staff strength from April 20 onwards. 
     
  • On April 19, the state government gave directions and standard operating procedures to be followed at manufacturing establishments, work spaces and public places post April 20.  These include: (i) no overlapping shifts, (ii) staggered lunch breaks, (iii) training on good hygiene practices, (iv) compulsory wearing of face cover, and (v) sanitising workplaces between shifts. 

For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.