Aadhar status: Post 2 months of Supreme Court 5 Judges bench Judgment

It has been around two months since a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court determined the fate of the Aadhaar project. The majority judgement did not receive much enthusiasm as it only limited Aadhaar’s use, rather than strike it down entirely. The two aspects that emerged from the judgement were that first, Aadhaar can be made mandatory only for subsidies, benefits or services, and Aadhaar authentication cannot be carried out by private entities.

Aadhaar’s Continued Existence

One of the biggest criticisms of the Aadhaar judgement is that not much notice was taken of the negative consequences of upholding section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. This provision allows Aadhaar to be used for availing subsidies, benefits and services, which citizens are entitled to. The reasoning provided is that it will cut-out ghost beneficiaries and fraud which will result in savings.

However, the petitioners had repeatedly argued against this provision since the technology is not free from issues and hence false negatives can result in exclusion from entitlements. In September 2017, 11-year-old Santoshi Kumari died of hunger in Jharkhand. The reason was due to her family not linking their ration card with Aadhaar, they did not receive the foodgrains they were entitled to. On November 11, 2018, Kaleshwar Soren died of starvation. Once again, the culprit was non-possession of Aadhaar card. He had managed to survive on his neighbours’ charity after his ration card was cancelled in 2016.

The Economic Times reported today that Aadhaar enrolments, as well as authentications, had fallen drastically. However, this does not reveal much information about Aadhaar’s continued use. First, the drop in enrolment could be explained as many people in the country have already been coerced into getting an Aadhaar card before the Supreme Court decided on the matter. On the other side, the drop in authentication requests can also be one explanation as the use of Aadhaar for authentication has been made optional, hence rather than having to play with biometrics, people may prefer to submit or use other documents.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgement, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has issued two press releases in connection to it. The first press release welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Aadhaar’s constitutional validity, the other concerned the electronic-Know Your Customer (e-KYC) norms. In the second press release, the UIDAI along with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) stated that SIM cards linked with Aadhaar would not be deleted, as some rumours suggested. The release also mentioned that one could de-link one’s Aadhaar card by submitting a request for de-linking accompanied by an alternative identity document for fulfilling the e-KYC requirements.

However, Aadhaar continues to be of value to banks and telecommunications operators since no opt-out procedure has been devised till date. In a letter to the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) on November 19, the State Bank of India (SBI), in the light of the Aadhaar judgement, had decided to suspend the Aadhaar enabled Payment System (AePS). However, the UIDAI – the agency overseeing Aadhaar and its implementation – on November 30, informed the banks through a circular to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), that since it is not possible to distinguish between authentication requests for the purposes listed under section 7, suspending the AePS would have an adverse impact. This circular would certainly be music to the ears of those operating the AePS, Bhim App as well as Aadhaar Pay, not to mention the numerous other corporate beneficiaries of Aadhaar.

Protecting the Financial Technology Companies

Barely a day after the Supreme Court had delivered its decision, the Union Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, and the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology as well as Law and Justice, Ravishankar Prasad, said that the Supreme Court’s reading down of section 57 related only to contracts. In this regard, the Ministers are correct. But this is the letter, not the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Section 57 states that: “Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual for any purpose, whether by the State or any body corporate or person, pursuant to any law, for the time being in force, or any contract to this effect:

Provided that the use of Aadhaar number under this section shall be subject to the procedure and obligations under section 8 and Chapter VI.”

Due to the blank cheque nature of this provision wherein Aadhaar can be used for ‘any purpose’ and by ‘the State or any body corporate or person’, the Supreme Court held:

“We read down this provision to mean that such a purpose has to be backed by law. Further, whenever any such “law” is made, it would be subject to judicial scrutiny. (b) Such purpose is not limited pursuant to any law alone but can be done pursuant to ‘any contract to this effect’ as well. This is clearly impermissible as a contractual provision is not backed by a law and, therefore, first requirement of proportionality test is not met. (c) Apart from authorising the State, even ‘any body corporate or person’ is authorised to avail authentication services which can be on the basis of purported agreement between an individual and such body corporate or person. Even if we presume that legislature did not intend so, the impact of the aforesaid features would be to enable commercial exploitation of an individual biometric and demographic information by the private entities. Thus, this part of the provision which enables body corporate and individuals also to seek authentication, that too on the basis of a contract between the individual and such body corporate or person, would impinge upon the right to privacy of such individuals. This part of the section, thus, is declared unconstitutional.”

However, there appears to be a loophole in this part of the Supreme Court’s decision, i.e. that the use of Aadhar has to be backed by a law. Under clause 3 of Article 13 of the Constitution, law is defined as including; “any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law”. Therefore, a departmental notification requiring the use of Aadhaar for any purpose would still not fall foul of the Supreme Court’s decision on section 57. The only saving grace is that the law is subject to judicial review, hence any formal iteration making Aadhaar mandatory can be challenged before the Courts. However, this depends on whether the general public is vigilant enough.

The actions of the UIDAI, as well as statements from the government regarding section 57, appear to be geared towards ensuring the continued existence of fintech companies. While the ongoing Assembly elections along with the rhetoric around the Ram Mandir and the Citizenship Bill grab people’s attention, the Monsoon Session of Parliament could see the passage of a Bill to enable Aadhaar’s use for digital payments. It is not necessary to state who the true beneficiaries of such a law would be.

Supreme Court of India's on Aadhar PAN Link

1.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Landmark Judgement has upheld Section139AA of the Income Tax Act,1961 as constitutionally valid which required quoting of the Aadhaar number in  applying for  PAN as well as for filing  of income tax returns.

2.    The Hon’ble Court also held that the “Parliament was fully competent to enact Section 139AA of the Act and its authority to make this law was not diluted by the orders of this Court.” Therefore, no violation of the earlier Supreme Court orders were found in enacting the provision.

3.    The Hon’ble Court has also held that Section 139AA of the Act is not discriminatory nor it offends equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

4.    Section 139AA is also not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in so far as it mandates giving of Aadhaar number for applying PAN and in the income tax returns and linking PAN  with Aadhaar number. 

5.    Section 139AA(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as introduced  by the Finance Act, 2017 provides for mandatory quoting of Aadhaar/Enrolment ID of Aadhaar application form, for filing of return of income and for making an application for allotment of PAN with effect from 1st July, 2017.

6.    Section 139AA(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 provides that every person who has been allotted PAN as on the 1st day of July, 2017, and who is eligible to obtain Aadhaar, shall intimate his Aadhaar on or before a date to be notified by the Central Government. The proviso to section 139AA (2) provides that in case of non-intimation of Aadhaar, the PAN allotted to the person shall be deemed to be invalid from a date to be notified by the Central Government.

7.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld Section 139AA(1) which mandatorily requires quoting of Aadhaar for new PAN applications as well as for filing of returns.

8.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also upheld Section 139AA(2) which requires that the Aadhaar number must be intimated to the prescribed authority for the purpose of linking with PAN.

         9.    It is only the proviso to Section 139AA(2) where the Supreme Court has granted a partial stay for the time being pending resolution of the other cases before the larger bench of the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble  Supreme Court has unequivocally stated as follows:

      “125. Having said so, it becomes clear from the aforesaid discussion that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number.  This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld.  At the same time, as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Article 21, we are of the opinion that till the aforesaid aspect of Article 21 is decided by the Constitution Bench a partial stay of the aforesaid proviso is necessary.  Those who have already enrolled themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act.  Those who still want to enrol are free to do so.  However, those assessees who are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply with the provision of Section 139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as invalid for the time being.  It is only to facilitate other transactions which are mentioned in Rule 114B of the Rules.  We are adopting this course of action for more than one reason.  We are saying so because of very severe consequences that entail in not adhering to the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act.  A person who is holder of PAN and if his PAN is invalidated, he is bound to suffer immensely in his day to day dealings, which situation should be avoided till the Constitution Bench authoritatively determines the argument of Article 21 of the Constitution.  Since we are adopting this course of action, in the interregnum, it would be permissible for the Parliament to consider as to whether there is a need to tone down the effect of the said proviso by limiting the consequences.”

10.  Finally the effect of the judgement is as following 

   (i)     From July 1, 2017 onwards, every person eligible to obtain Aadhaar must quote their Aadhaar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for filing of Income Tax Returns as well as for applications for PAN;

 (ii)  Everyone who has been allotted permanent account number as on the 1^st day of July, 2017, and who has Aadhaar number or  is eligible to obtain Aadhaar number, shall intimate his Aadhaar number to  income tax authorities for the purpose of linking PAN with Aadhaar;

 (iii) However, for non-compliance of the above point No.(ii), only a partial relief  by the Court has been given to those who do not have Aadhaar and who do not wish to obtain Aadhaar for the time being, that their PAN will not be cancelled  so  that other consequences under the Income Tax Act for failing to quote PAN may not arise.