As of April 22, Uttar Pradesh has seen 1,449 cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and accounts for 6.8% of the total cases in India. Of the 1,449 persons infected of the disease, 173 have recovered and 21 have died (3.1% of the total deaths in India due to the disease). These proportions are quite lower as compared to the state’s share in the country’s population (16.5% as per Census 2011). However, the same holds for the number of persons tested for COVID-19 as well, as of the 4.85 lakh persons tested in India, 37,490 persons (7.7%) have been tested in Uttar Pradesh.
To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the state, the state government has taken various measures over the past 2-3 months, spanning across areas such as health, law and order, and social welfare. This includes imposition of lockdown in 16 districts starting March 23, which was extended to the entire state on March 24, before the nation-wide lockdown came into effect. This blog post looks at the key measures taken by the state government in response to COVID-19 and the lockdown.
Before the lockdown
One of the earliest steps the state government took in response to COVID-19 was on January 27, when it planned to set up a 10-bed isolation ward in every district hospital and medical college, and increased vigilance on the Indo-Nepal border and airports. Subsequently, on March 15, it ordered all travellers coming from foreign countries to be kept under surveillance and quarantine for a period of 14 days. Between March 13 and March 17, the government ordered the closure of educational institutions, cinema halls, museums, and tourist spots to prevent public gatherings. On March 20, this was extended to include malls, and all religious, social, and cultural activities. Further, to prevent unnecessary crowding, government hospitals were ordered to provide emergency services only.
Welfare measures: The state government also undertook certain relief measures to provide aid to the persons affected due to COVID-19 and the consequent loss of economic activities. These include: (i) free treatment for all persons infected with COVID-19, (ii) order to all employers to provide 28-days paid leave to infected or quarantined persons under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, (iii) another order under the Act to all shops and factories to provide paid leave to all workers if the government orders temporary closure of their business, (iv) free one-month ration to 1.65 crore registered construction workers and daily wage labourers for April, and (v) Rs 1,000 per month of direct cash support to 20.4 lakh registered construction workers, and to 15 lakh street vendors and other unregistered workers.
During the lockdown
During the lockdown, the state government’s measures have been aimed towards: (i) strengthening the medical response in the state, (ii) providing relief to various sections of the society from issues being faced during the lockdown, including UP migrants in other states, and (iii) addressing difficulties being faced in the supply of essential goods and services. For implementation of these measures, the government constituted 11 committees on March 26 for the work related to various departments. On April 13, similar committees were constituted under the respective Ministers.
Healthcare
Medical facilities: On March 23, committees were constituted in each district to determine the process for purchase of emergency medical equipment. On March 25, the government ordered each of the 51 government and private medical colleges in the state to set up isolation wards of 200-300 beds. It also proposed to conduct training programmes at district-level for AYUSH doctors, nursing staff, retired health workers, and officers of army medical corps. This was subsequently made more comprehensive by including lab technicians, ward boys, and sweepers.
Testing: On April 3, the government ordered setting up one testing lab in every medical college, or in a district hospital, in case there is no medical college in the district. On April 20, the government decided to encourage the use of pool testing within the state to contain the spread of COVID-19. It also approved consideration of plasma therapy as a treatment option for COVID-19.
Funding: On April 3, the UP COVID Care Fund was set up for strengthening treatment facilities in medical colleges, and for expenditure on personal protection equipment, test kits, ventilators, isolation and quarantine wards, and telemedicine. Subsequently, two Ordinances were promulgated on April 8 to deduct the salaries and allowances of Ministers, MLAs, and MLCs for 2020-21 by 30% to donate Rs 20 crore to the UP COVID Care Fund. Further, Rs 1,509 crore was made available for the Fund by suspending the Local Area Development scheme for legislators for a period of one year. In addition, the government increased the limit of the Contingency Fund from Rs 600 crore to Rs 1,200 crore through an Ordinance to allow for extra-budgetary expenditure on COVID-19 related measures.
Hotspots: On April 8, the government sealed the hotspot areas across the state by prohibiting any movement in the area. Only medical, sanitisation, and doorstep delivery teams are allowed to enter and exit the hotspot areas, and all enterprises are required to be completely closed. The government has also ordered for door-to-door checking of the residents living in hotspot areas.
Essential goods and services
Other than the distribution of ration, the state government is providing food to persons staying in night shelters, with community kitchens being set up for persons who are unable to cook. On April 17, the government made access to the Public Distribution System (PDS) universal till June 30, irrespective of the availability of ration card and Aadhaar card. In case of death of a person, his ration card, maintenance allowance, and other benefits will be provided to his family as per their eligibility.
To prevent profiteering from sale of essential goods, on March 28, the government ordered the shopkeepers to display the price list in their shops. On March 29, the government decided that the supply of electricity and water will be ensured and these connections will not be cut for one month. Subsequently, it also ordered that fixed charges for electricity will not be levied for industries during the period of lockdown. On April 3, the government ordered banks to remain open on holidays so that government relief assistance is available to the beneficiaries.
Migrants
From other states: On March 26, the state government decided that migrant workers travelling through the state to other states such as Bihar will be provided food and shelter, and sent safely to their destination. Subsequently, on March 28, the government decided to prepare the list of migrants who came to the state, provide them food, and keep them under surveillance and quarantine. On April 22, the government allowed migrants from other states to go back to their home state if the respective state government decides to take them back.
From UP: The state government requested other states to provide food and shelter to the migrants from UP present in their states, and requested the migrants to stay where they are. To provide further support to migrants, the state government appointed senior administrative and police officials as nodal officers for each state where migrants from UP might be present. These nodal officers are the main points of contact for migrants living in the respective states. They are also responsible for coordinating with the respective state government and local administration to ensure the essential needs of migrants such as food and shelter are met, and alleviate their difficulties, if any.
On April 19, the government brought nearly 8,000 students who were studying in Kota back to the state. The government allowed them to be kept in quarantine in their homes provided they download the Aarogya Setu app.
Economy
The state government is encouraging the purchase of produce by Farmer Producer Organisations directly from farms as an alternate option to mandis. On April 13, the government formed a committee of officials to prepare a workplan for attracting investment made by countries such as USA and Japan, which is moving out of China, to the state. In this regard, the government is planning to contact the embassies of various countries. On April 19, it constituted another committee to work towards providing employment to about 5 lakh migrant workers who have returned to the state in the last 45 days. On April 20, the government also allowed construction work on expressway projects to begin after preparation of an action plan. In line with the advisories issued by the central government, the state government decided to provide relaxations from the lockdown in districts with less than 10 cases starting April 20. The district administrations are preparing action plans for opening up industries in these districts, excluding the ones situated in the hotspot areas.
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.
