On 16, March Lok Sabha, while rejecting the five amendments suggested by the opposition members of the Rajya Sabha, passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) bill, 2016 through a voice vote in its original form.

Since the Government had introduced the Bill as a money Bill, it could not be rejected or amended by the Rajya Sabha. Although the Upper House, the Rajya Sabha, can only recommend for amendments, the Lok Sabha has got the power to decide not to return money Bill within 14 days after receiving it from Lok Sabha, family which the bill is considered passed by the Upper House (Article 109 of the Constitution of India).

Jairam Ramesh, the Congress MP in Rajya Sabha and the author of all amendments passed by the Rajya Sabha had, in fact, proposed nine amendments got 76 votes in support and 64 against; two more received 77 votes in support and 64 against; whereas one remaining amendment got 76 votes in favour and 65 against.

The amendments suggested a provision to permit a person to “opt out” of the Aadhaar system even if she or he is already enrolled; and another provision to ensure that if a person decides not to be part of the Aadhar system, she/he will be catered “alternate and viable” means of identification for purposes of Government subsidy, benefit or service.

Must Read:  Aadhar Bill Presented in the Lok Sabha

Another amendment demanded to restrict the use of Aadhaar numbers only for targeting of Government benefits or services and not for any other purpose.

Another of the amendments solicited to change the phrase “national security” to “public emergency or in the interest of public safety” in the provision defining situations in which disclosure of identity information of an individual to certain law enforcement agencies can be permitted. According to the author of the suggested amendments the tern “national security” was a “loose” term likely to be misused while interpreting it.

Main Features of the Bill

The Bill has incorporated, in the context of Data Security, the provision to guarantee the security, confidentiality of sensitive information.

The Bill upholds privacy rights, in the context of individual right, of citizens as data access shall be limited to high level functionaries and makes data sharing rule based.

The Bill provides for efficient targeting of beneficiaries, eliminating intermediaries and other costs capacitates prudent spending, fiscal savings.

The Bill advocates high transparcy, prompt service delivery system.

Also Read: Smart Cities Mission and its Objectives 

Eligibility for getting an Aadhaar number

Every Indian resident is able to acquire an Aadhaar number. Under the Bill a ‘resident’ is defined as a person who has resided in India continuously for 182 days, in the one year preceding the data of application for enrolment for Aadhaar.

Information to be submitted

To get an Aadhaar number an individual has to submit her/his (i) biometric (photograph, finger print, iris scan) and (ii) demographic (name, date of birth, address) information. The Unique Identification Authority (UID) may specify other biometric and demographic information.

Use of Aadhaar Number

In order to verify the identity of a person seeking a subsidy or a service, the government requires him or her to have an Aadhaar number. If the person does not possess an Aadhaar number, he or she would be directed by the Government to apply for the same, and in the meantime, the Government has to provide an alternative means of identification to such person. Any public or private entity can accept the number the Number as a proof of identity of the holder of the Number, for any purpose. But Aadhar number cannot be a proof of citizenship or domicile.

Don’t Miss: 12th Five Year Plan and History of Planning in India

On Monday, ending confusion among aspirants and their guardians as well, the President Parnab Mukherjee signed the ordinance that was given green signal by the Parliament on May 20. The ordinance in question was brought to ‘partially’ overrun a Supreme Court ruling that said all Government colleges, deemed universities and private medical colleges would be covered under NEET (National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test).

According to this executive order, the students belonging to State Governments boards will not have to sit for NEET on July 24, 2016. However, they are going to be part of this uniform entrance exam from the next academic session.

Prior to the nod of the President, the confusion over the fate of this particular executive order ordinance got into confusion as a news got circulated in the mainstream electronic media that the President had sought the suggestion of the Attorney General on the executive order; it resulted in the understanding that now the issue of NEET would take more time as Attorney general being on leave and the President had to go China on an official visit.

All these events led to a central theme: the theme of issuance of ordinances and its validity in the context of India democracy.

Must Read: Powers of The President of India

Defining Ordinance

Giving definition of an Ordinance, A Dictionary of Law by William C Anderson says, ‘Ordinance, is a State paper, operative as a fundamental law, yet not described as either a Constitution or a Statute.’

Simply put, Ordinances are executive orders, signed by the President of India, that command the same force and effect an Act passed by the Parliament does have.

Article 123 of the Constitution of India grants the power to issue ordinances to the President of India.

However, the reality behind issuing and passage of  ordinances is that it is the Union Cabinet that, finally, gives green signal for issuing ordinances to the President who has to merely give his assent.

Read Also: National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Order : A Dilemma  

On the Need for Ordinance

An ordinance, ordinarily considered as a last recourse and not an instrument to sideline the power or functioning of Parliament, can be issued only when both houses of Parliament Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are not in session.

It has been presumed that generally ordinances should be issued only on issues which need immediate consideration and cannot wait for Parliament to assemble and consider the bill.

However, when we shift from theory to practical in the context of making of an ordinance we are made to comprehend that, in reality, many times ordinances are issued by Governments due to the lack of consensus, on the issue in focus, in the Parliament.

The most practical side of issuing an ordinance is that if there remains a possibility of a bill of being rejected in an ongoing session of Parliament, the Government can take the route of issuing an ordinance pending its approval by the Parliament during a later session.

It is important to mention here that if one goes through the history of passage of ordinances in India one will find that on an average, 10.3 ordinances have been issued every year even though these are to used as an emergency provision only.

Dealing with the promulgation of an Ordinance sub-clause (a) of clause 2 of the Article 123 of the Constitution of India says: An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance “shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions”.

Sub-clause (6) of clause 2 of the Article 123, however says that an ordinance ‘may be withdrawn at any time by the President’.

During the Validity period, that is of six weeks, of an ordinance, Parliament can either pass the ordinance transforming it into an Act of disapprove the ordinance. If the Parliament fails to pass it, the ordinance can be re-issued by the Government (Constitutionally the President).

The Constitution of India does not put any time limit as there is no limit how many times ordinances can be re-issued. However, the Supreme Court, in the context of the re-issuance of the ordinances, has ruled that an ordinance cannot be re-issued endlessly without getting it to vote in the legislature.

Also Read: Government to Appoint New Governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI)