Lok Sabha Debates
Combined Discussion On Statutory Resolution Regarding Disapproval Of Aadhaar ... on 4 July, 2019
Seventeenth Loksabha > Combined discussion on Statutory Resolution regarding Disapproval of Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 (No. 9 of 2019) and Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Statutory Resolution - negatived and Government Bill- passed).
माननीय सभापति: माननीय सदस्यों, आईटम नंबर 12 और 13 चर्चा के लिए एक साथ लिए जाएंगे ।
श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन – उपस्थित नहीं ।
श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी ।
SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY (BAHARAMPUR): Sir, as Shri Premachandran is absent from the House, I am compelled to move the Statutory Resolution.
“That this House disapproves of the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 (No. 9 of 2019) promulgated by the President on 2 March, 2019.” विधि और न्याय मंत्री; संचार मंत्री तथा इलेक्ट्रोनिकी और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्री (श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद): महोदय, मैं प्रस्ताव करता हॅूं :-
“ कि आधार (वित्तीय और अन्य सहायिकियों, प्रसुविधाओं और सेवाओं का लक्षित परिदान) अधिनियम, 2016 का संशोधन करने तथा भारतीय तार अधिनियम, 1885 एवं धन शोधन निवारण अधिनियम, 2002 का और संशोधन करने वाले विधेयक पर विचार किया जाए ” माननीय सभापति महोदय, यह जो आधार का संशोधन विधेयक हमने प्रस्तुत किया है, इसके कुछ कारण हैं, जो बताने आवश्यक हैं । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पुत्तास्वामी केस में प्राइवेसी को फंडामेंटल राइट माना था । बाद में आधार एक्ट को उन्होंने वैधानिक पाया । लेकिन आधार एक्ट में उन्होंने कुछ बदलाव का संकेत दिया । जैसे कि अगर कोई बच्चा वयस्क हो जाए तो उसकी सहमति आवश्यक है । दूसरा, आधार के लिए वैकल्पिक आइडेंटिटीफिकेशन प्रूफ होना चाहिए । उसी प्रकार हम लोगों ने अवकाश प्राप्त रिटायर्ड न्यायमूति श्रीकृष्णा की अध्यक्षता में एक समिति बनाई थी, उन्होंने भी कई अनुशंसाएं की कि आधार की अथॉरिटी को और प्रभावी बनाया जाए । क्रिमिनल पैनल्टी को सिविल पैनल्टी बनाया जाए और उनका एक स्वायत्त चरित्र होना चाहिए ।
सभापति महोदय, सबसे बड़ी बात यह है कि आधार का प्रयोग टैलिग्राफ रूल्स के अंतर्गत, सर्क्युलर के अंतर्गत सिम कार्ड के लिए होता था । दूसरा, इनकम टैक्स में एक बदलाव किया गया, जिसमें आधार को पैन कार्ड से जोड़ना अनिवार्य बनाया गया है । तीसरा, प्रिवेन्शन ऑफ मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग एक्ट के रूल्स के अंतर्गत यह प्रावधान किया गया कि आधार से लिंकेज जरूरी है । माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कहा कि चूंकि इनकम टैक्स में बदलाव एक लॉ के अंतर्गत हुआ है, इसलिए वह तो वैधानिक है, लेकिन टैलिग्राफ एक्ट में, और आपने एक सर्क्युलर से बदलाव किया और प्रिवेंशन ऑफ मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग एक्ट में एक रूल्स के अंतर्गत किया, यह उचित नहीं है, यह कानून में संशोधन होना चाहिए, तो आज वे दोनों संशोधन भी इस संशोधन का पात्र हैं ।
माननीय सभापति महोदय, इसमें हम एक बात आपको बताना चाहेंगे कि हमने यह कहा है कि मोबाइल कंपनियां आधार को वॉलेंट्री बेसिस पर अपने कस्टमर्स से उपयोग कर सकती हैं । वॉलेंट्री बेसिस का मतलब है कि कंसेंट जरूरी है । उनके सामने यह प्रावधान भी होना चाहिए कि वैकल्पिक रूप से भी वे एक और पासपोर्ट, राशन कार्ड इत्यादि दे सकते हैं । यही प्रावधान हमने इसके लिए भी किया है ।
सर, एक संशोधन में मैं मूव करूंगा, मैं उसके लिए नोटिस देने वाला हॅूं कि सब्सिडीज़ अभी जो सैक्शन – 7 के अंतर्गत केन्द्रीय कंसॉलिडेटिड फण्ड से आती हैं, उनको हम देते हैं । कई राज्यों का यह आग्रह था कि जो स्टेट का कंसॉलिडेटिड फण्ड है, उसमें भी यह प्रावधान कीजिए, ताकि हम जो भी जो सब्सिडीज़ देते हैं, उनका फायदा मिल सके । हम कंसॉलिडेटिड फण्ड ऑफ इण्डिया के साथ-साथ, दो शब्द – कंसॉलिडेटिड फण्ड ऑफ स्टेट्स को भी जोड़ने का प्रस्ताव रखते हैं ।
सभापति जी, आज का यह जो पूरा बिल है, बाकी मैं विस्तार से, चर्चा के बाद इसका उत्तर दूंगा । लेकिन एक बात हमें समझनी चाहिए कि आधार ने बहुत ही अल्प समय में, आज मैं यह बात कहना चाहता हॅूं, सदन में जब भी चर्चा हुई है, यह मैंने पहले भी कहा है कि आधार आरंभ उस पक्ष ने किया था । उस समय का आधार निराधार था, हमने आधार को कानून बनाया है । यह बदलाव करने की कोशिश है …(व्यवधान) आपने सही कहा कि वह चर्चा हुई थी । लेकिन जब उसकी कार्यवाही शुरू हुई, अथॉरिटी बनी, तो चूंकि यह विभाग मैं देखता हॅूं, सन् 2014 में आईटी मंत्री बना, तो सबसे पहले मैंने सवाल किया कि What is the legal basis of Aadhaar? To our dismay, we found that there was no statutory basis. तो पहली बात यह थी कि कानून पास करो । वह कानून पास हुआ, बाकी आप जानते हैं, उसमें अपने भी भाग लिया था ।
महोदय, आज मैं बहुत विनम्रता से सदन को कुछ बातें बताना चाहता हॅूं । बाकी तो विस्तार से उत्तर दूंगा और वह बताना बहुत जरूरी है । भारत की आबादी 130 करोड़ है और भारत की 130 करोड़ की आबादी में 123.81 करोड़ आधार हैं । एक प्रकार से पूरे देश में आधार कार्ड इतने विस्तार से आया है । हमने वॉलेंट्री कहा है । लेकिन इस सदन को मुझे बताते हुए खुशी हो रही है कि देश के 69.38 करोड़ मोबाइल फोन्स आज आधार से जुड़े हुए हैं ।
माननीय सभापति जी, आपको मालूम है कि इस पर चर्चा भी हुई है कि डायरेक्ट बेनिफिट ट्रांसफर के आधार पर हम जन-धन आधार मोबाइल में लिंक करके गरीब लोगों को उनकी गैस की सब्सिडी, राशन की सब्सिडी, आवास, शौचालय और मनरेगा का पेमेंट करते हैं । मुझे आपको बताते हुए प्रसन्नता हो रही है कि पिछले पाँच वर्षों में हम लोगों ने 7.48 लाख करोड़ रुपये डी.बी.टी. में भेजे हैं । हमने 1.41 लाख करोड़ रुपये बचाये हैं, जो बिचौलिए और ठग नाम के लोग खा जाया करते थे । आधार ने अपनी उपयोगिता साबित की है ।
अंत में, मैं एक ही बात कहूँगा कि देश तो आधार के साथ चल पड़ा है । देश की जनता ने आधार को बहुत प्यार, स्नेह के साथ स्वीकार किया है । मैंने बताया कि हम सिम कार्ड के लिए वॉलेंटरी भी देते हैं, आधार माँगो नहीं तो पासपोर्ट दो, राशन कार्ड दो, जनता आधार ही दिखाती है। आज आधार की उपयोगिता हुई है और बाकी जब मैं उत्तर दूँगा तो विस्तार से बताऊँगा कि दुनिया आधार की किस तरह से उपयोगिता समझ रही है । आज कल जब भी मैं विदेश जाता हूँ तो वहाँ कहते हैं कि हमें आधार चाहिए, हमें आधार बताइए । आज डिजिटल इंडिया की एक बहुत बड़ी सफलता है । डिजिटल इंडिया की जब हम व्याख्या कर रहे थे, तो हमने कहा कि समावेशी डिजिटल विकास । Digital haves and digital have nots के बीच की दूरी को पाटेंगे । लॉ कॉस्ट टैक्नोलॉजी के माध्यम से देश को आगे बढ़ाएँगे ।
माननीय सभापति जी, मुझे माननीय सदन को, आपको बताते हुए बहुत प्रसन्नता हो रही है कि आधार को पूरे हिन्दुस्तान के वैज्ञानिकों ने डेवलप किया है । लॉ कॉस्ट टैक्नोलॉजी है, सेफ है और सिक्योर है ।
आज जो कुछ आवश्यक संशोधन थे, मैंने प्रस्तुत किए । मुझे लगता है कि पूरा सदन उसका समर्थन करेगा । बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।
माननीय सभापति : प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत हुए:
“कि यह सभा राष्ट्रपति द्वारा 2 मार्च, 2019 को प्रख्यापित आधार और अन्य विधियाँ (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2019 (2019 का संख्यांक 9) का निरनुमोदन करती है ।” “कि आधार (वित्तीय और अन्य सहायिकियों, प्रसुविधाओं और सेवाओं का लक्ष्यित परिदान) अधिनियम, 2016 का संशोधन करने तथा भारतीय तार अधिनियम, 1885 एवं धन शोधन निवारण अधिनियम, 2002 का और संशोधन करने वाले विधेयक पर विचार किया जाए ।” SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY: Sir, first of all, my friend, Shri Premachandran Ji was destined to move it but due to his absence, I have been asked to move the Statutory Resolution. I have already requested the Chair that if it is possible, Shri Premachandran should be given the opportunity to move because he is entitled to it.
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): Sir, we were under the impression that it will be taken up at 2 p.m. We never expected that such an important Bill will be taken up like this or else some announcement should have come in this regard.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: You know the rules. Let Shri Adhir Ranjan speak.
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : I know the rules.
SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY : Sir, if the rules permit, I do not have even an iota of objection to it.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sir, I must clarify that while I was introducing the Bill, there was objection. I clarified that. He did not raise that. Now the Bill is for substantive discussion and surely I would welcome all the eloquence of Shri Premachandran at the time of debate. Whatever clarifications I have to give, I will give them in my reply. So I think enough opportunity is going to come and I wish to be enlightened by his very eloquent interference.
PROF. SOUGATA RAY (DUM DUM): Sir, it is a Statutory Resolution therefore in any way, he has to move it. It is not a question of his clarification. According to the law and according to the Constitution, the Statutory Resolution has to be moved and he has to speak on it. It is because the Government had brought an Ordinance, that is why, first the Statutory Resolution has to be discussed and then the merits of the Aadhaar Bill can be discussed.
SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY: Mr. Chairman, Sir, first of all, I vehemently oppose the way the Ordinances are being promulgated in a frequent manner. If you observe the proceedings and List of Business of this House, you yourself will have an idea as to how this Government has been resorting to the route of Ordinance without any substantial rhyme or reason.
Sir, there is no objection to the promulgation of an Ordinance per se because our Constitution has the provision for invocation of Ordinance. In the same way, the Constitution has also provided as to when, how and why an Ordinance could be promulgated. We all know that it could be promulgated in the event of an emergency situation or because of an extraordinary situation. Such circumstances warrant the invocation of an Ordinance. But the way this Government has been promulgating Ordinances, it would certainly be detrimental to the health of democracy, more so, in Parliamentary democracy which we have been pursuing since Independence.
Hon. Law Minister is a dextrous person. I would like to remind him that during his tenure, he brought in legislation which is in the ratio of 4:10, which means four Ordinances per ten legislation. It is also an unprecedented record in the history of modern India that per 10 legislation, this Government is promulgating four Ordinances. That is why we have been taking a strong exception to the route of promulgation of Ordinances followed by this Government.
आधार का करिश्मा सब जानते हैं, आपको बताने की कोई जरुरत नहीं है । आप आधार हमसे उधार लिए हैं । आप कहते हैं कि पहले आधार निराधार था, लेकिन मैं कह रहा हूँ कि आप हमसे आधार उधार लेकर खुद का आधार बना रहे हैं । इसके जरिए, आधार के आधार पर आप बड़ा-बड़ा ढिंढोरा पीटते जा रहे हैं कि डीबीटी में मैंने यह किया, उसमें वह किया । आप बताइए कि डीबीटी कौन लाया? Who conceived the idea of Direct Benefit Transfer Programme (DBT)? I would like to ask this question to the hon. Law Minister. इसलिए हम कहते हैं कि आप सारा कुछ ले रहे हैं, लेकिन जब सराहना का समय आता है, आप सारी सराहना लेने के लिए दौड़ रहे हैं । For this reason, the way which this Government is following is not befitting to a democratic Government and that may be called as `political plagiarism’.
आप हर बात में ढिंढोरा पीटते जा रहे हैं । आप बताइए कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आपको फटकार लगायी थी या नहीं । सुप्रीम कोर्ट को फटकार लगाने की क्या जरुरत थी? उसने ऐसा इसलिए किया, क्योंकि इस बिल में निहित कमियाँ थीं । आप फंडामेंटल राइट्स का उल्लंघन कर रहे थे । आप हमारी प्राइवेसी का उल्लंघन कर रहे थे और इसीलिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आपको फटकारा । आप इस सरकार के लॉ मिनिस्टर हैं । आपके साथ मंत्रणा होती है । आप कैसा बिल बनाते हैं कि पार्लियामेंट में जाकर एक फंडामेंटल चीज पर आपको फटकारा लेना पड़ता है । सबसे बड़ी चीज प्राइवेसी है । हम लोगों के जमाने में, जब हमने आधार बनाया था, उसमें किसी के फंडामेंटल राइट को हमने अपने हाथ में लेने के लिए कुछ नहीं बनाया था । हमने किसी की प्राइवेसी के ऊपर उसमें हस्तक्षेप नहीं किया था । इस सरकार के आने के बाद बातों-बातों में हिन्दुस्तान के आम लोगों के ऊपर, उनके अधिकारों के ऊपर हस्तक्षेप करने जा रहे हैं और इसीलिए मैं इनके खिलाफ हूँ ।
डी.बी.टी. कौन लाया था, ‘आधार’ किसने बनाया था? निलेकणि को किसने तैनात किया था? यह यू.आई.डी.ए.आई. किसने बनाया था? सारी चीजें तो हमने बनाई हैं । आपने यह हमसे सीखा है, यह बात कहने में आपको क्यों शर्म आती है, यह मुझे पता नहीं है । लेकिन, इसमें शर्म नहीं आनी चाहिए, जो सही है, उसे सही ढंग से सही कहना चाहिए । इसमें आपको दम दिखाने का मौका मिलेगा । हम लोगों ने ‘आधार’ बनाया है ।
आप तो पहले बड़ी चतुराई के साथ इसे मनी बिल की हैसियत से पास कराने गए थे । इसलिए कोर्ट में भी किसी को दौड़ना पड़ा कि इसको मनी बिल की हैसियत से पास नहीं कराएं, क्योंकि आप इस पर चर्चा करना नहीं चाहते थे और आप बात-बात में ऑर्डिनैंस लेकर आए । आज ऐसे कौन-से हालात पैदा हो गए कि आपको ऑर्डिनैंस लाना पड़ा । आपके पास एक्ट है, ऑर्डिनैंस के तहत आप काम कर रहे हैं । अभी 26 जुलाई तक हमारा सदन चलेगा । कल हमारा बजट है । बजट के पहले दिन ‘आधार’ ऑर्डिनैंस के ऊपर चर्चा को लाने की क्या जरूरत थी? इसमें इतनी जल्दबाजी क्यों है? आप तो कह रहे हैं कि आपने सदन में चर्चा की है । जब आपने चर्चा की है, जब आप इसमें छोटे-मोटे संशोधन ले कर आ चुके हैं तो फिर आपको इसमें इतनी जल्दबाजी क्यों है कि आपको हर बात में ऑर्डिनैंस लाना पड़ता है । एक आउटगोइंग सरकार ऑर्डिनैंस लाती है और एक इनकमिंग सरकार उसे बिल में तब्दील करती है । यह क्या है?
आप ‘वोट-ऑन-एकाउन्ट’ क्यों कराते हैं, क्योंकि वह टेम्पोररी अरेंजमेंट है । अगर आप यह सोच रहे थे कि हम अगले दिन सत्ता में आएंगे तो फिर आपने ‘वोट-ऑन-एकाउन्ट’ क्यों कराया था, क्योंकि यह हमारे नियमों के मुताबिक है । चुनाव के पहले ऑर्डिनैंस का प्रोमल्गेशन कभी भी बिफिटिंग नहीं होता है, यह हम लॉ मिनिस्टर से कहना चाहते हैं ।
दूसरी बात, सबसे पहले आपको डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बिल पर ध्यान देना चाहिए । हमें गुमराह करने के लिए आप डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बिल नहीं लाना चाहते हैं । आपकी सरकार कहती है कि आज डेटा कैश के बराबर है । मैं नहीं, बल्कि प्रधान मंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी कहते हैं कि डेटा कैश के बराबर है । फिर आप इसे कैश के बराबर तवज्जो क्यों नहीं देते हैं? आप डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बिल लेकर आइए और उसके बाद ‘आधार’ बिल लेकर आए । Heaven would not have fallen upon us. आप हमें गुमराह करना चाहते हैं, हमें डेटा प्रोटेक्शन की सुविधा नहीं देते हैं, इसका मतलब कि अभी भी आप प्राइवेसी को तवज्जो नहीं देते हैं । जिस प्राइवेसी को हम फण्डामेंटल राइट्स बताते हैं, उसे आप अभी भी तवज्जो नहीं देना चाहते हैं ।
सर, मैं रविशंकर जी का बहुत सम्मान करता हूं । आपके माध्यम से मैं उनका ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहता हूं कि क्या आप इसे स्वीकार करेंगे कि ऑरिजिनल और genuine में कोई फर्क नहीं है? आप इसके loopholes को ब्लॉक कीजिए । जैसे आप के.वाई.सी. डॉक्यूमेंट्स की बात करते हैं तो बहुत सारे ऐसे डॉक्यूमेंट्स हैं, जो ऑरिजिनल हो सकते हैं, लेकिन आप उसे कैसे कह सकते हैं कि यह genuine है? इन loopholes का इस्तेमाल करके टेररिस्ट और एंटी-नेशनल एक्टीविस्ट्स हमारे हिन्दुस्तान को हानि पहुंचा सकते हैं । इसलिए इसकी genuineness और ऑरिजिनैलिटी क्या है, इस पर आपको थेाड़ा ध्यान देना चाहिए क्योंकि मान लीजिए कि मैं बंगाल से आता हूं । बंगाल में एक ‘आधार’ कार्ड बना लेता हूं । जब हम दिल्ली में आते हैं तो मेरे पास वही के.वाई.सी. डॉक्यूमेंट्स हैं । उनकी मदद से मैं दूसरा ‘आधार’ कार्ड बना लेता हूं । क्या इसकी कोई गारंटी है कि इसके ऊपर हम रोक लगा सकें? इसलिए मैं कह रहा हूं कि genuineness और ऑरिजिनैलिटी में क्या अन्तर है, इसे आप देखिए और इस पर आप ठोस कदम उठाइए । ‘आधार’ हम सबकी जरूरत है । हम इसका विरोध करने के लिए यहां खड़े नहीं हैं, because it is the brainchild of UPA government. फिर हम इसका विरोध क्यों करेंगे? हम self-contradictory और self-conflicting काम नहीं करते । इसलिए हम सरकार को थोड़ा सलाह-मशविरा दे सकते हैं कि आप इस विषय पर ध्यान दीजिए ।
जैसा मैंने कहा कि आप ओरिजनैलिटी और जेन्यूइनिटी में फर्क कीजिए । यह अच्छा हुआ कि एक बच्चे के पास उसका ऑप्शन है, वह अपना ऑप्शन दे सकता है कि 18 साल के बाद इसमें नाम लिखाऊंगा या नहीं, यह अच्छा है । ऑफ लाइन वेरीफिकेशन का भी अच्छा नतीजा निकला है, क्योंकि ऑन लाइन में बहुत सारी टेम्परिंग होने की संभावना थी । इसमें सबसे बड़ी बात है कि इस ऑन लाइन की सुविधा को लेकर बहुत सारी धांधलियां हो रही थीं । इसके खिलाफ सदन के अंदर तथा बाहर बहुत चर्चा हुई थी । उसके बाद ही ऑफ लाइन की बात आई है । मैं सरकार के खिलाफ जरूर एक शिकायत दर्ज़ करना चाहता हूं, क्योंकि सरकार हमारे डेटा प्रोटेक्शन के अधिकार के संबंध में बिल नहीं लाती है । सरकार जल्दबाजी में ऑर्डिनेन्स का रास्ता पकड़कर हमारे लोकतंत्र के ढांचे को कमजोर करने की कोशिश कर रही है । सर, यह मैं नहीं कह रहा हूं, बल्कि ‘हिन्दू’ पेपर ने भी यह निकाला था-
“On any reasonable reading, it ought to be plainly apparent that the Bill flagrantly flouts both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgment which gave the Aadhaar programme a conditional imprimatur. It is, therefore, entirely likely that the Government is banking on a sense of political fatigue having set in over the project, and perhaps it believes it has made the programme so ubiquitous that a few additional legislative tweaks are unlikely to shock and jolt the dissenters. But the present move is so brazen that we will be failing in our collective duties were we to allow the amendments to be carried out without any debate. For, if enacted, the law will once again allow private corporations, including banks and telecom operators, to use Aadhaar as a means to authenticate identity. Astonishingly, this change has been proposed despite the Government’s abject failure to enact comprehensive legislation protecting our data and our privacy.” Therefore, I would again urge upon this Government that you should bring a comprehensive legislation including the Data Protection Bill so that the fruits of Aadhaar permeate the targeted population without infringing the institution.
With these words, I conclude my speech. Thank you.
श्री पी. पी. चौधरी (पाली): सभापति महोदय, मैं आपको धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूं कि आपने मुझे इस बिल पर बोलने का मौका दिया ।
महोदय, मैं इस बिल के सपोर्ट में बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । मैं कहना चाहूंगा कि मोदी जी के वर्ष 2014 से लेकर वर्ष 2019 के बीच और अभी सेकेंड टर्म में, यह कहा जाए कि अगर कोई गेम चेन्जर है, तो मैं कहूंगा कि जो ट्रिनिटी है, तो वह जीएसटी, आईबीसी और आधार है । इकोनॉमी को मूव करने के लिए, इकोनॉमी के रिफॉर्म के लिए और डिजिटल इंडिया के लिए इनका बहुत बड़ा रोल है ।
13.59 hrs (Shri N.K. Premachandran in the Chair) जहां तक आधार से सब्सिडी, अन्य बेनिफिट्स तथा सर्विसेज़ देने की बात हो, उसका जो इलैबोरेट प्रोविज़न है, वह आधार एक्ट 2016 के सेक्शन-7 में कह रखा है कि यह जो आधार एक्ट है, वह कोई एक एविडेन्स के रूप में काम में नहीं लिया जाएगा, चाहे वह सिटीजनशीप के लिए हो, चाहे डोमिसाइल के लिए हो ।
सर, मैं यह भी बताना चाहूंगा कि this Aadhaar Act, 2016 and this Bill, if we see the combined spirit and the object of both, are meant for good governance, efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services.
यह एक करप्शन फ्री रिज़ीम के लिए बहुत बड़ा मूव है । मैं यह भी बताना चाहूंगा कि आज आधार पूरे विश्व में सबसे बड़ा आइडेन्टिटी प्रोजेक्ट है ।
14.00 hrs माननीय मंत्री जी ने बताया कि करीब 123 करोड़ आधार कार्ड जारी हो चुके हैं और आधार नंबर दिए जा चुके हैं । एक्टिविस्ट चाहे कुछ भी बात करें, हो सकता है कि वे भी आधार का उपयोग लेते हों, लेकिन समय-समय पर गवर्नमेंट के काम में, गरीबों को सब्सिडी, बेनेफिट और सर्विसेज़ कैसे पहुंचें, इसमें हर्डल क्रिएट करने के लिए समय-समय पर ये एक्टिविटीज की जा रही हैं ।
जहां तक बैंक अकाउंट का आधार से सीडिंग का सवाल है, पहली बार इतना बड़ा काम हुआ है । आधार बैंक अकाउंट से सीडिंग हुए हैं और लगातार यह प्रोसेस चल रहा है । यह कंटीन्युअस प्रोसेस है । अगर हम देखें तो 439 स्कीम्स की, जो विभिन्न बेनेफिशियरीज हैं, बैंक अकाउंट से सीडिंग हुई है । लगभग 55 मिनिस्ट्रीज के बेनिफिशयरीज जो हैं, समाज के अंतिम छोर पर जो व्यक्ति बैठा है, उसको बेनेफिट देने के लिए यह काम किया जा रहा है ।
मंत्री जी ने बताया कि 7 लाख 30 हजार करोड़ रुपये अब तक आधार से, जब से इनकी बैंक अकाउंट से सीडिंग हुई है, ट्रांसफर हो चुके हैं । मैं यह भी बताना चाहूंगा कि इतने बड़े अमाउंट को अगर हम डिसबर्स करते तो हमें बहत बड़ी मशीनरी लगती और बहुत ज्यादा एक्सपेंस होता । इस टेक्नोलॉजी के माध्यम से कितना पैसा बचा होगा ।
मुझे एक बात हमारे पूर्व प्रधान मंत्री स्वर्गीय राजीव गांधी जी की याद आती है । उन्होंने कहा था कि मैं जब 100 रुपये दिल्ली से भेजता हूं, तो सिर्फ 15 रुपये बेनेफिशियरी के पास पहुंचते हैं और 85 रुपये बीच में भ्रष्टाचार की भेंट चढ़ जाते हैं । इस बात को किसी ने नहीं देखा, किसी ने गम्भीरता से नहीं सोचा । आधार आया, लेकिन उसको बैंक अकाउंट से सीडिंग करने का जो भाग है, वह दूसरा पार्ट है । एग्जीक्यूशन का जो पार्ट है, वह इंपोर्टेंट पार्ट है । जैसा अभी कांग्रेस के लीडर अधीर रंजन चौधरी साहब ने बताया कि आधार यूपीए की ब्रेनचाइल्ड है । मैं आपको बता दूं कि आधार वर्ष 2002 में कंसीव हुआ । यह अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी जी की सरकार का ब्रेनचाइल्ड है । यूपीए के टाइम में इस पर कुछ काम हुआ । आपने जो दूसरी चीजें कही हैं, मैं आगे उनके बारे में बताउंगा । जहां तक इसका जो आइडिया कंसीव हुआ, वह वाजपेयी जी के टाइम में हुआ । आधार के द्वारा जो डॉयरेक्ट बेनेफिट, बैंक के द्वारा जिसकी सीडिंग हुई, जैसा मंत्री जी ने बताया कि 1 लाख 42 हजार करोड़ रुपये इससे बचे हैं । आप सोच कर देखिए, इतना बड़ा अमाउंट, अनुमान लगाया जा रहा है कि प्रतिवर्ष करीब 1 लाख करोड़ रुपये, सिर्फ आधार की सीडिंग बैंक अकाउंट से होने से हर साल बचेंगे । इससे कितना बड़ा रेवेन्यू बचेगा और वह पैसा गरीबों के वेलफेयर के लिए जाएगा । समाज के अंतिम छोर पर जो व्यक्ति बैठा है, उसकी भलाई के लिए जाएगा । गरीबों का पैसा, गरीबों तक पहुंचाने का अगर किसी ने काम किया है, तो प्रधान मंत्री मोदी जी ने किया है ।
यह बात तो प्रधान मंत्री स्वर्गीय राजीव गांधी जी ने कह दी कि जब मैं 100 रुपये भेजता हूं, तो 15 रुपये पहुंचते हैं, लेकिन 85 रुपये बीच में कौन खा जाते हैं, इसके लिए उन्होंने आगे कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की । पहली बार प्रधान मंत्री मोदी जी ने करीब 8 करोड़ ऐसे घोस्ट अकाउंट्स, जो गवर्नमेंट सब्सिडी या बेनेफिट के हकदार नहीं थे, वे गवर्नमेंट बेनेफिट लेते थे । ऐसे व्यक्ति जो जन्मे ही नहीं थे, इस तरह का बेनेफिट लेते थे । 8 करोड़ लोगों को निकाल कर एक तरफ कर दिया । हम देखते और सुनते हैं कि वे लोग जो मोदी जी के खिलाफ हैं, जिनको यह तकलीफ हो रही है कि 8 करोड़ लोग जो फर्जी खा रहे थे, भ्रष्टाचार कर रहे थे, अपने गलत नाम लिखा रखे थे, सरकार का पैसा गलत तरीके से उठा रहे थे, उन लोगों को अलग करने का काम किसी ने किया, तो मोदी जी ने किया ।
पहले किसान बहुत दु:खी होते थे । चाहे उनकी सब्सिडी का पैसा हो, चाहे उनको जो विभिन्न बेनेफिट्स मिल रहे हों, चाहे दिव्यांग हों, चाहे गरीब और कमजोर हों, उन तक पैसा समय पर नहीं पहुंचने की वजह से उनको बहुत तकलीफ होती थी ।
किसानों को समय पर पैसा नहीं मिलने की वजह से सुसाइड का रेट भी बढ़ा । यह भी अपने आप में एक बहुत बड़ा कारण था । पेमेंट डीले की वजह से बड़ी तकलीफ हुई थी । मेरा मानना है कि राज्य सरकारों को भी इसे एडॉप्ट करना चाहिए । अगर इसे सभी स्कीमों में लागू कर दिया जाए, सभी जगह इसे एडॉप्ट कर लिया जाए तो मेरा मानना है कि बेनामी प्रोपर्टी ट्रांजेक्शन की ट्रैकिंग बहुत आराम से हो सकती है ।
अभीअधीर रंजन जी ने बताया कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सरकार को फटकार लगाई । आधार 2002 में आया, 2014 के पहले यूपीए ने आधार को बिना कानून बनाए या बिना लेजिस्लेटिव बैकिग के लाए, सिर्फ एक्जिक्यूटिव पॉवर से एक ऑथेरिटी क्रिएट कर दी और ऑथेरिटी को सारे पॉवर दे दिए । उस पर संदेह होना कि डेटा के लीकेज के बहुत चासेंज हैं । पार्लियामेंट के सामने आप कोई कानून नहीं लाए, इस तरह से यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट में मामला गया । वर्ष 2014 के पहले ही इनके द्वारा एक्जिक्यूटिव पॉवर की वैलिडिटी को आर्टिकल 21 के तहत सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चैलेंज किया गया । आर्टिकल 21 स्पेसिफिकली प्रोवाइड करता है “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law”. उस समय यूपीए की सरकार इसको पार्लियामेंट के सामने क्यों नहीं लेकर आई? आर्टिकल 21 साफ कहता है कि अगर आप इस तरह का कानून लेकर आएंगे तो पार्लियामेंट के सामने आएगा । इन्होंने आर्टिकल 21 का कन्ट्रावेन्शन किया, वॉयलेशन किया । ये बिना रिकार्ड देखे एनडीए सरकार पर आरोप लगा रहे हैं, एनडीए सरकार ने कोर्ट में डिफेंड किया । भारत के संविधान की मंशा के अनुसार 2016 का आधार एक्ट लेकर आए, उसमें करीब-करीब सारी सेफगार्ड प्रोवाइड की गईं । जहां तक लॉ की बात है, कांग्रेस पार्टी बात करती है, पसर्नल लाइफ एंड पसर्नल लिबर्टी की, इन्होंने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में इंटरनल इमरजेंसी के वक्त यहां तक कह दिया कि जहां तक आर्टिकल 21 लाइफ एंड लिबर्टी का कानून है “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law”. इनका मानना था कि इसमें आदमी को किल भी कर सकते हैं, लेकिन लॉ होना चाहिए । इन्होंने यह नहीं देखा कि जो लॉ है, आपने जो लॉ बनाया है, वह रीजनेबल होना चाहिए, फेयर होना चाहिए और जस्ट होना चाहिए । उस लॉ की Justifiability is subject to challenge before the Supreme Court लेकिन इनका हमेशा से ट्रैंड रहा है, इनकी जो मंशा रही है, इनका आर्टिकल 21 का इंटरप्रेटेशन रहा है, वह इमरजेंसी के दौरान और सुप्रीम कोर्ट में इनके स्टेटमेंट और समय-समय पर जो इनका स्टैंड रहा है, उससे पता लग जाता है । जो सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला है, हम उस जजमेंट को वेलकम करते हैं क्योंकि हम खुद चाहते हैं, मोदी सरकार खुद चाहती है कि आर्टिकल 21 के अनुरूप कानून बनना चाहिए । हमने माना है कि राइट टू प्राइवेसी वन ऑफ द फंडमेंटल राइट है । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आधार एक्ट 2016 को अपहैल्ड किया है और उसको कंस्टीट्यूशनली वैलिड माना है । यही नहीं, पूरे आधार स्कीम को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने वैलिड माना है, उसमें सिर्फ दो प्रोविजन, जो प्राइवेट सैक्टर को देने की बात थी, उसको कहा कि नहीं देंगे, उसके लिए हम नेसेसरी प्रोवजिन इस बिल में लेकर आ रहे हैं । जहां तक हमारा लॉ है, अभी आधार 2016 को लेजिस्लेटिव सपोर्ट है, अभी जो लॉ आया है, उसमें सरकार ने नेसेसरी अमेंडमेंट किया है, उसको सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जजमेंट के स्प्रिीट स्प्रिट और ऑब्जेक्ट को ध्यान में रखते हुए अमेंडमेंट किए हैं ।
अगरहम सुप्रीम कोर्ट का जजमेंट देखें, Basically, it meets the concept of Constitutional trust and good governance. There are observations of the Supreme Court with respect to Aadhaar Scheme in totality except two provisions.
The Supreme Court observed that it meets the concept of Constitutional trust; it meets good governance; it is also for the digital privacy; and the Aadhaar Project is unique and unparallel document of empowerment. सिर्फ सैक्शन 7 जो सब्सिडी स्कीम का है, उसमें मेंडेटरी और वाल्येंटरी का जो मामला था, उसमें कुछ प्रावधान जैसे टेलीकॉम सर्विसिस, मोबाइल, स्कूल में एडमिशन या बैंक एकाउंट खोलना, ये वॉल्येंटरली रखा है । यह कन्सेंट पर निर्भर करता है, अगर कोई आधार देना चाहता है तो दे सकता है । हम आजकल आम प्रचलन देख रहे हैं कि सारे लोग बैंकों में आधार देते हैं, वॉल्येंटरली देते हैं । सारे लोग स्कूल में एडमिशन के समय आधार देते हैं और सारे लोग मोबाइल सेवा के लिए भी आधार देते हैं । किसी भी बेनिफिट या सब्स्डिी के लिए जाओ तो आधार बेसिक आइडेंटी का प्रूफ हो गया है ।
जहां तक सैक्शन 57 की बात है, उसके बारे में जरूर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि प्राइवेट कांट्रेक्टर को नहीं दे सकते अतः यह प्रोवीजन अनकांस्टीट्यूट किया है । इसके लिए इस बिल में माननीय मंत्री जी नैसेसरी अमेंडमेंट लेकर आए हैं ।
The Supreme Court also observed that privacy cannot be the absolute fundamental rights. इसके लिए रेस्ट्रिक्शन्स इम्पोज हो सकते हैं, and law is to be made by Parliament. At the same time, those restrictions should be reasonable, just and fair. इसके लिए ज्यूडिशियल रिव्यु अवेलेबल है ।
मैं यह भी बताना चाहता हूं कि ऐसी भी रेस्ट्रिक्शन्स हो सकती हैं जो नेशनल सिक्योरिटी, पब्लिक इंटरस्ट के लिए हो । सुप्रीम कोर्ट का मानना है - To strike a fine balance, concern of the State and individual interest is to be taken into consideration. अब आधार में क्यूआर कोड और वर्चुअल आईडी से सिक्योरिटी और भी एन्हांस हो गई है ।
जहां तक सिक्योरिटी की बात है, आधार एक्ट 2016 में कोर बायोमेट्रिक इन्फार्मेशन, फिंगर प्रिंट और आइरिस के लिए सफिशिएंट सेफगार्ड हैं । अब 2019 का जो बिल आया है उसमें भी सफिशिएंट सेफगार्ड प्रोवाइडिड हैं । अगर हम 2016 एक्ट में, सिक्योरिटी को देखें तो सैक्शन 28 ‘Security and Confidentiality Information’ का है । Section 29 deals with restriction on sharing information. आधार इन्फार्मेशन को सिर्फ काम में लिया जा सकता है । Generation of Aadhaar Number and it can also be used for generation of authentication of Aadhaar. सिक्योरिटी का सफिशिएंट सेफगार्ड 2016 के एक्ट के प्रावधान में भी है और 2019 के बिल में भी है ।
जहां तक अथारिटी क्रिएट करने का प्रावधान है, सैक्शन 11 और सैक्शन 23 में एक ऐसी अथॉरिटी क्रिएट की गई है जो प्राइवेसी को प्रोटेक्ट करती है और उसके बाद उसकी अटोनोमी भी एन्श्योर की है । ऐसा नहीं है कि गवर्नमेंट की आउटरीच हो । उसमें अटोनामी है, and there can be also a power of regulator for taking enforcement action.सरकार ने अथॉरिटी देखकर उसको एम्पावर किया है जिससे रैगुलेटर का काम भी कर सकते हैं ।
सभापति जी, आपके सामने 2019 का जो बिल आया है, उसमें सिविल पैनेल्टीज़ का प्रावधान है । अगर इन्फार्मेशन का कोई डिस्क्लोजर करे तो एक करोड़ रुपये तक की पैनेल्टी लगाई जा सकती है । जहां तक अपराध के पनिशमेंट की बात है, तो यह पहले तीन साल थी, अब बढ़ाकर दस साल तक की पनिशमेंट है । अगर कोई अनआथोराइज्ड डाटा पर एक्सेस करता हो या उस डाटा को टैम्परिंग करता हो तो दोनों बिल 2016 और 2019 को देखें तो उसमें डिटरेंट इफेक्ट है । हमारे कहने का मतलब है कि सैंट्रल आइडेंटी डाटा रिपोजिटरी को टच करने का सवाल ही नहीं उठता है ।
अब जहां तक सिक्योरिटी का कन्सर्न है तो जो सेन्ट्रल आइडेंटिटीज़ डेटा रिपॉजिट्री हैं, उसके जो बाउन्ड्रीज़ हैं, फेन्सेज हैं, मैं यह कह सकता हूं कि डेटा रिपॉजिट्री के एराउंड कई फेन्सेज हैं और टेक्नोलॉजिकल फायरवाल्स भी हैं, जिससे किसी भी सूरत में वहां इंटरनेट एक्सेस नहीं किया जा सकता, इसके लिए सिस्टम फूलप्रूफ बना हुआ है । इसलिए यह चिन्ता की जरूरत नहीं है, जैसे अभी श्री अधीर रंजन जी ने कहा कि डेटा सिक्योरिटी के लिए लॉ आना चाहिए । सारे सेफ गार्ड 2016 और 2019 के बिल में लिए जा सकते हैं । मैं यह भी कहूंगा, कई लोग doubt करते हैं, लेकिन हम टेक्नोलॉजिकल रूप से साउंड हैं । Only two minutes, Sir. We have also introduced artificial intelligence in the system. मान लीजिए अगर कई लोग यह कहें कि हमारी जो फिंगर प्रिंट है, इसे कोई आर्टिफिशियल यूज कर ले, आइरिस आर्टिफिशियल यूज कर ले, लेकिन अब बॉडी के ब्लड सर्कूलेशन के साथ ऐसा सिस्टम आ गया है, जिससे डेड आदमी का भी फिंगर प्रिंट यूज नहीं कर सकते, क्योंकि It depends upon the blood circulation. सिस्टम पूरा डिटेक्ट कर सकता है कि यह फिंगर डेड पर्सन की है या जीवित व्यक्ति की है । इसलिए इसमें सफिशिएंट सेफ गार्ड हैं । इसमें किसी को चिंता करने की जरूरत नहीं है । I would also like to tell you that there is a Report of Justice B.N. Srikrishna – For a Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians. इसमें 12 डिजिट का आधार हैं, इसके साथ वी.आई.डी है, इसमें अल्टरनेट वर्चुअल आइडेंटिटी भी दी गयी है लेकिन कोई जरूरी नहीं है कि इसमें आपके आधार नम्बर दिखेंगे । जहां तक consent की बात है, 18 साल के नीचे जो बच्चे हैं, उनमें से 7 करोड़ बच्चों के आधार कार्ड बने हुए हैं, इसके लिए उनके पैरेंट्स और गार्जियन की कन्सेंट ली जाती हैं लेकिन 18 साल का होने पर, उनके पास ऑप्शन एवलेबल है कि whether he can continue with Aadhaar or cannot continue with Aadhaar, it is open for him.
2019 के बिल में यह भी प्रावधान किया है कि शेयरिंग एंड डिस्क्लोजर के जो रिस्ट्रिक्शन हैं, उसके इन्फार्मेशन के लिए पनिश्मेंट प्रोवाइडेड हैं और वालन्टेरली सर्विसेज के लिए अगर कोई कहता है कि मेरे पास आधार नहीं है तो उसको रिफ्यूज नहीं किया जा सकता । ये सारे प्रावधान सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जजमेंट के आधार पर लिए गए हैं । This Bill of 2019 is in consonance with the direction and observation of the Supreme Court Judgment and also in consonance with the constitutional mandate.
With these observations, I support this Bill.
*DR. D. RAVIKUMAR (VILUPPURAM): Hon. Chairman Sir, Vanakkam. I thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill. This Bill is aimed to change the fate of 133 Crore people of India. Not only that, this Bill will also change the way the public governance is in the country. When I rise to speak on this Bill, as it is my maiden speech, I thank the voters of my Villupuram Parliamentary constituency for this opportunity. I thank the inspiring leader Thiru Thol Thirumaa Valavan and the Leader of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Thiru M.K. Stalin for allowing me to contest elections. My stand on this Bill that this Aadhaar Bill should be opposed and it should be sent to the review of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Why should I oppose this Bill? Hon. Prime Minister in his reply to this august House has mentioned about the contribution of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, particularly the contribution of Dr. Ambedkar to the water management schemes. I wish to quote the views of Dr. Ambedkar with regard to this Bill. “Political democracy rests on four premises. They are: i). The individual is an end in himself. ii). The individual has certain inalienable rights which must be guaranteed to him by the Constitution. iii) The individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his constitutional rights as a condition precedent to the receipt of a privilege and iv) The State shall not delegate powers to private persons to govern others.” These are the words uttered by our revolutionist Dr. Ambedkar when he was introducing the Bill of Rights. These words are apt to mention here for the Aadhaar Amendment Bill also. This Bill permits the private companies to use basic personal data pertaining to the people as per their wish. Even after the Hon Supreme Court has clearly mentioned its view point on this Bill, on the contrary, this Bill allows private companies to use the data of the people of this country. Justice Sikri of the Hon Supreme Court in his majority opinion on Aadhaar Bill has stated and I wish to quote:
“ Apart from authorising the State, ‘ even anybody 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 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 each individuals. This Part of the section, thus is declared unconstitutional.” Even when the particular section of Aadhaar Bill introduced earlier by the Government had been declared unconstitutional by the Hon. Supreme Court, this Government without any concern for that, is permitting the private companies to make use of Aadhaar details of the people. I wish to cite an example, After the verdict of the Hon. Supreme Court was pronounced, the Union Government had written letters to the telecom companies including Jio asking to explain their views in this regard. For that these companies have said that they would not be deleting the Aadhaar data saved by them and moreover these companies said that they will file an appeal with the Hon. Supreme Court in this regard. This Government which has sought the opinion of the private telecom companies did not intend to seek the opinion of the people by way of consultation process. During the course of Aadhaar related case hearing, the Government informed the Hon. Court that Aadhaar data would be only used for implementing social welfare schemes. But in the Economic Survey presented to the Parliament, today, Government has clearly mentioned that it has intentions to sell the Aadhaar data and earn revenue. I wish to state a Para on page 94 of Economic Survey Vol. I, under the heading Private Sector firms as beneficiaries.
“Undoubtedly the data revolution envisioned here is going to cost funds. Although the social benefits would far exceed the cost to the Government, at least a part of the generated data should be monetized to ease the pressure on Government finances.” They have cited that by way of selling the data to the private companies, they can earn money. By way of selling the data pertaining to students the Government says that it can earn money. The future aim of the present Government is to go for revenue generation through the sale of preserved data of the people. This is complete violation of the verdict of the Hon. Supreme Court. This is against the basic structure of our Constitution. Even after the Hon. Supreme Court’s judgement, privacy has become a part of our fundamental rights. This is the basic structure of our constitution as highlighted by Hon. Supreme Court.
The Government cannot tamper with the basic structure of the Constitution of India. This is the verdict of Hon. Supreme Court. When privacy has become part of our basic structure, an attempt to change it will be unconstitutional. Hon. Minister has stated Aadhaar as a valid law. This law is valid which is a basic requirement. There is no change. It does not mean that we should pass any law merely because it is valid. It does not mean that with the powers available, we can take away the rights of the people of this country. This will be undemocratic. These are not merely my words. They flow from the dissenting opinion of Justice D Y Chandrachud who called Aadhaar Act as “a fraud on the Constitution”. Parliament should take note of the strong observations of Justice Chandrachud. Hon Minister should take note of this. The Hon Minister has said that as many as 68 Crore people have taken their SIM cards by submitting Aadhaar details. It means the Aadhaar data of 68 Crore people has gone to the private companies. Privacy of the people has become a question mark. Even poorest of the poor are unable to avail medical facilities due to this. Two days ago, an elderly woman went for treatment to AIIMS. She approached the OPD for registration. But she was denied registration due to non-availability of an Aadhaar card. There is no provision in the present amendment Bill to punish those who insist upon Aadhaar for various reasons, against the verdict of Hon. Supreme Court. This bill has been introduced after the Hon. Supreme Court struck down the Section 33 Sub-section 2 of the Aadhaar Act. This Bill paves way to sell the preserved personal data relating to Aadhaar of the people of this country to private companies and earn money. This is against the fundamental rights and basic structure of our Constitution. I urge upon the Hon. Minister and the Government through you Sir that this Bill in its present form should be sent for the consideration of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Thank you Vanakkam.
SUSHRI MAHUA MOITRA (KRISHNANAGAR): Hon. Chairperson Sir, I rise today to oppose the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2016. This Bill violates the Supreme Court Judgement. There is a complete lack of transparency, there is a lack of public consultation and scrutiny by any Parliamentary Committee.
You tabled this Bill earlier this year, in spite of opposition from us. You could not pass it in the Rajya Sabha and then you issued an Ordinance, in spite of there being no extraordinary circumstances, whatsoever. What this Bill does is, it strikes at the very heart of the primacy of an individual and the privacy of an individual’s data. This is what the Supreme Court in their 4:1 judgement also tried to talk about. There are three very problematic clauses in this amended Bill. First is clause 7 of the amendment to Section 4 of the parent Act. It says that you are mandating authentication of an Aadhaar number holder for the provision of any service, if required by law made by Parliament. So, what are you doing? You are going and amending the parent law which is, the Indian Telegraph Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Let me go through this Bill. Since we are discussing the Bill, I am going to go through this Bill, Section by Section, and point out where we are. In this Bill, I have counted in more than 11 places these words ‘as specified by regulation’. But on page 15 of the amendment Bill, there is a Memorandum regarding delegated legislation where you say regulation is an administrative matter of procedure and it is not practicable to provide for it in the Bill itself. But this is integral to the Bill. How are the primacy of individual and privacy of data a matter of procedure? How in 11 places can you say that this is specified by regulation?
Now, when we go to Section 2, you are talking about an alternative virtual identity. The entire idea about Aadhaar was to set up a unique 12-digit number. If we have gone through and traversed such a long distance to come up with a new 12-digit number, where is the question of coming up with another alternative virtual identity? Is this not another way to just bypass the Supreme Court judgement which struck down clause 57? In Section 2 (aa), there is also another very scary clause. You are inserting a new clause into (aa) where you say “Aadhaar ecosystem includes enrolling agencies, Registrars, requesting entities, offline verification-seeking entities and any other entity as may be specified by regulations.” The same thing is there when we go to the Memorandum regarding delegated legislation where you say this is something that is not practicable to put in the Bill. We are in Parliament. We are debating the Bill. How can I debate the Bill and be expected to give my assent for something I am not clear about, not transparent about?
When we go to Section 2 (pa), you say about offline verification. “Offline verification is the process of verifying the identity of the Aadhaar number holder without authentication, through such offline modes as may be specified by regulations.” Again, I have no transparency about what this offline number is. You do not tell me what the method of verifying it is. You say it is specified by regulations. It is not integral to the Bill. Again, this is completely shrouded in mystery. Now, what does this mean? Does this mean you are handing over my Aadhaar number to some private agency the means to authenticate my number offline? So, you are seeking Parliamentary assent for something which I am not clear about.
Now, what if the ecosystem fails? You have set out this Aadhaar ecosystem. What if it fails? You say there are alternatives, and viable means will be specified by law. Today, I am giving up my biometric data, my most personal private data to a private agency. If the ecosystem fails, you are saying that there are viable means to recourse but I do not know what they are. They have not been specified in the Bill.
We come now to Section 5, 4(a). This is very important. You say, “compliant with such standards of privacy and security as may be specified by regulations;” Again, there is no standard of privacy and security today. There is no data protection Act. This is a classic case of ‘cart before the horse’. You are saying that this is going to be specified; this is going to be privacy in security. In the absence of a data protection Act, which is what the Srikrishna Commission Report said we should do, which Justice Sikri and the other 4:1 judgment also laid out, how can you ask me to give up my information to a private agency? How is this possible? This is integral to the Bill. You cannot have the cart before the horse. Give us recourse, put your viable framework in place and we will give our assent. There is no problem.
When we go to Section 5, 4 (a) (ii), there, you are seeking authentication for such purpose as the Central Government in consultation with the Authority, and in the interest of the State, may prescribe. This is a very scary clause. So, it is giving you carte blanche to do anything. When the Central Government thinks of anything that is in the interest of the State, they can speak to the Aadhaar Authority and decide. This is carte blanche. When Aadhaar was set out, it was meant to provide for services to the poor. It was never meant to get data.
The idea of Aadhaar was not to be acquisitive. The idea of Aadhaar was a means to give services to the poor, to distribute subsidy and other things from the Consolidated Fund of India. That is also extremely important. What has Aadhaar become now? Aadhaar has become a way to get information for private entities – my bank, who is contracted to me; my telecom provider, who has no business getting my biometric information. All these private agencies today are using this as a means to get the data. Its original idea which was for the poor to get subsidy, has completely turned on its head.
Justice Srikrishna in his Report recommended that the Aadhaar authority should be autonomous with no Government interference. This clause 5 (4a)(iii) completely flies in the face of that recommendation because it says that the Central Government in consultation with the authority, in the interest of State, can do anything.
In respect of Section 7, the Supreme Court said that Aadhaar must be used to providing services from the Consolidated Fund of India. Section 57 which was about sharing of data with private entities, was struck down. They said ‘for any other purpose’ we will strike it down. So, Section 57 as a whole was struck down. This particular Bill, it seems to me, is not even hiding the fact. It is absolutely open in its objective which is to bypass this particular Section 57, which was struck down, and it allows private entities, telecom providers and banks to get access to our biometric information. Bank accounts have nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund of India. Telecom providers have nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund of India.
Then, you are amending the PMLA. What is PMLA? It is Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It means that when you have a problem, if you have been flagged as somebody who is involved in money laundering, you may have an account in the Cayman Islands, then PMLA can be used. In this case, every law-abiding citizen is assumed to be involved in money laundering. This is a reverse onus. This flies in the face of any proportionality that you are assumed to be involved in money laundering. Here all of us who are law-abiding citizens must give our biometric data. Let us be flagged. If I have a Swiss bank account and if I am flagged and you want my data by all means, you have a right to do it. But you cannot expect the law-abiding citizens to give up their data. You are changing very substratum of the judgement; you are changing the very substratum of the concept of privacy in our Constitution.
Section 7 (8A), speaks about offline verification of an Aadhaar number. It says, ‘Every offline verification of an Aadhaar number holder shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of this section.’ Sir, we are dealing with the country where majority of the people are not informed. When the people get a Jio sim card, they give up their Aadhaar number because it is giving them free data. They have no idea what they are even giving up. In this case, which private entity is going to give it in writing and which person receiving it is going to understand what they are getting. The Government is there to look into the interests of the poor. The Government is not there to help private agencies to get information from them.
There is one more important thing. In respect of Section 12, the Supreme Court in its judgement said, ‘There has to be a higher-ranking officer along with, preferably, a Judicial Officer.’ They used the term ‘preferably’. But you have deleted it in the Bill. When my personal biometric information is being disclosed in the interest of national security, obviously, extra measures should be taken up. When the Supreme Court says that a Judicial Officer should be there, why have you deleted that clause?
Then, clause16 is again very scary. You are introducing an entirely new concept which is that of offline verification seeking entity. You are creating an alternative identity. Why should I give an alternative identity in the hands of private individuals? This is interfering with my relationship of contract with my bank. You are forcing me to give my biometrics by law to a bank or to a telecom agency.
Sections 37 and 38 of the principal Act deal with penalties which are available to the authority for unauthorised access to the Central Identity Data Repository. Recourses are available to the authority. I am the person and it is my data, why Sections 37 and 38 are not applicable to me? Why do I have no recourse if my data has been hacked from the Central Identities Data Repository? How come the authority has recourse and I, as an individual, whose biometric it is, who has the first right over it, do not have access to it? What is this?
You have now amended Section 24 of the Indian Telegraph Act. You are saying that you can use the Passport and any other document which will get notified by the Central Government. As of today, there is no notification issued. Only five per cent people of India have Passports.
So, you have not notified the other documents. Only five per cent people have passports. So, they have to give either Aadhaar or passport number. What does it mean? You are forcing people to give Aadhaar.
By clause 25 of the Bill, you are introducing a new Section 11A into PMLA which allows banking companies to conduct Aadhaar-based authentication and offline verification. By amending the parent Act, you are completely changing the substratum of the judgement; you are trying to bypass the judgement as well as the right to privacy, which we are entitled to as per our Constitution. So, we urge you that in the absence of that, please open this to public consultation and have the closest scrutiny by referring this Bill to the Standing Committee.
Sir, this is what we would request you. Thank you.
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI (ELURU): Hon. Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank you for giving me an opportunity considering the fact that it is such an important Bill. I will be named as part of the history for participating in this discussion. I also have to thank my colleague, Shri Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, MP from Narasaraopet for putting together this message, for whom I am stepping in because he could not make it due to personal reasons.
Let me begin by expressing pleasure that this Bill has lived up to the Supreme Court’s directive which read down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
I commend the Union Government for clearly aiming to omit the controversial sections on use of Aadhaar by corporate and private entities. No State in the world should directly or indirectly compromise the privacy of individuals’ sensitive information – neither into the hands of private players nor into its own and never to a foreigner.
I must welcome the enabling aspects of this Bill. It attempts to create much needed regulatory framework, enforcement capabilities and penalising powers for the Unique Identification Authority of India. Layers of encryption are being added to conceal the Aadhaar Number and its datasets, which is an appreciable thing. The idea of informed consent and protection of children by their guardians until adulthood are measures of a good public policy.
Giving citizens the option to choose their preferred mode of identity verification and opening up the ambit of complaints to them are necessary to democratise the system. The Bill stands firm on constitutional grounds as it states that no citizen will be denied services for want of Aadhaar verification. One cannot deny that this Bill decentralises funding by creating the UIDAI Fund that will bring self-sustenance to the project in its own right.
All these are positive things. I am sure that it is music to the ears of the Treasury Benches. They must be elated to know that someone from the middle order in this august House is painting a rosy picture of this proposed legislation. They are free to think so, but I urge them to lend their ears equally to know of the lurking dangers of our times. These days the big brother tendency of the system itself prevails to haunt our citizens in subtler ways than one can imagine.
Let me start by reminding you again that I come from the State of Andhra Pradesh which witnessed the country’s biggest Aadhaar data leak or, you might say, data theft. In July, 2016, the then State Government led by TDP conducted the much hyped PrajaSadhikara or the Smart Pulse Survey. It collected the socio-economic and demographic data of 1.26 crore households in the State citing that it was for a more effective delivery of welfare schemes. In the name of welfare, the TDP Government tricked the people into filling information gaps left behind by Aadhaar. …(Interruptions)
SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU (SRIKAKULAM): Sir, this is a baseless allegation. …(Interruptions)
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: Why do you not reply when you will get a chance to speak? You can reply when you get your chance to speak. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Nothing is going on record except Shri Sridhar’s speech.
…(Interruptions)* HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.
… (Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: If there is anything unParliamentary, it will definitely be taken care of.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI : Sir, in the name of welfare, the TDP Government tricked the people into filling information gaps left behind by Aadhaar. In the Government’s own words, it possessed 60 per cent of the information it needed and was going after the rest. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please try to avoid making allegations against the State Government. Please speak on the Bill.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: Not knowing the dire consequences of this survey, people started furnishing details of caste, family, community education, income, livelihood, whether they were beneficiaries of welfare schemes and what amount they received for the same.
The then Government took all these details and uploaded them online through a e-KYC-based verification system linked to Aadhaar. What then followed were a series of data leaks or what you might say, ‘data theft’ that exposed these details to the entire world. In 2018, the AP Housing Corporation’s website had disclosed personal information and bank details of about 1,34,000 people to several private agencies.
Again in June 2018, the AP State Government portal www.ap.gov.in itself hosted Aadhaar linked details of 4.5 crore residents living in the State. These details were directly taken from the Smart Pulse Survey Data mentioned earlier.
Again in September 2018, the AP Government put up an open data base once again of more than 23,000 farmers and other tribals. Subsidies provided to them from the AP Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Board and all their personal data were open for all to access.
The list of leaks was endlessly growing until one day, when it all started making sense to the people. In early 2019, people witnessed the truth behind the politics when huge number of applications were uploaded on to the Election Commission website for removal of votes to the tune of lakhs in each Parliamentary constituency. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Member, please confine to the Bill. Your time is already over.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI : Sir, can I continue to speak? It is my turn. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members, please be seated.
… (Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Your time is already over. Please conclude.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: I am just repeating what had happened. Everybody knows it. It is open to the whole world. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: You cannot make any specific allegation. You can very well speak on the Bill.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: They conspired systematically using the Government servants, paid workers and party cadre to conduct a public survey - all to ensure that they can categorise voters, profile them and ‘manage’ the election process in the State. The private company data-grids poured life into the illegal project by creating a SevaMitra mobile application which was accessible to each and every ground cadre of the party up to the booth levels and beyond.
The Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that a mammoth 7.8 crore records of Aadhaar data linked with Smart Pulse Data were stored by a private company. These records that belong to citizens of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were linked with voter ID numbers, colour photographs, names of family members, caste groupings, whether they were beneficiaries of welfare schemes and the amount they received for the same. A statement was issued by an Aadhaar Deputy Director that the database structure, size and file formats recovered from the private company’s storage devices were similar to those maintained by the Central Identities Data Repository. …(Interruptions) This is against a private company. I do not why you are so bothered.
Now, while the private company was booked by the Hyderabad police, till date not a single Government servant, paid worker or party cadre has been arrested. The TDP Party was even prepared on the legal front. In fact, back in 2017, the State Government passed the Andhra Pradesh Core Digital Data Authority Act. Section 37 of that Act states that no legal proceeding shall lie against any officer or employee for anything which is done in good faith. What this means is that leaks and breaches are not something any official in the Government can be held responsible for.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude.
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: Almost done Sir.
Our present State Government led by our hon. Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy is striving to scrap such draconian sections of the State law. Under his leadership we are preparing the ground to door deliver the welfare schemes. We are establishing Gram Secretariat in each village. Any eligible person can approach Village Secretariat and his request will be processed in 48 hours. I request the Union Government to look into it as a mode for other States as well.
With regard to this Bill, I would like to state that no doubt it bars private entities from using Aadhaar-based information. But there is no clarity on norms and penalties when officials within the Government itself leak the information to private entities or open web sources.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude.
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: In this case, we all saw that if an incumbent Government has the strong will to indirectly pursue illegal means to no end, they can go ahead and execute it. Except that, they stand exposed clearly. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude. I have to call the other Member.
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI : Almost done Sir.
… (Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude. I have to call the other speakers.
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: Yes, Sir. I am just concluding.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: If you want to conclude, please conclude in one or two sentences.
SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: Finally, I would like to suggest to the Union Government to incentivise independent security researchers to report data weaknesses for monetary rewards and domain recognition. A lot of countries, to strengthen their cyber defence, is successfully implementing this.
Sir, I would like to conclude by offering full support to this Bill and amendments made in it. Our suggestion is, rather than reacting to the situations, that we all should make amendments to Aadhaar in time so that no citizen will lose basic rights like availing their vote or access to the welfare schemes that are conceived for them. Thank you.
SHRI PINAKI MISRA (PURI): Thank you, Hon. Chairman, Sir. Let me wish this Hon. House, as my other colleagues from Biju Janata Dal have done, a ‘Happy Rath Yatra’. From the people of my constituency, Puri, I convey their best sentiments to this House. I am sure the people of Odisha will also be happy to receive reciprocal wishes from this House. Jay Jagannath! It is a very important event. As a Member of Parliament for Puri, I should have been there. But I am here today as instructed by my Party to flag certain issues before this House. Therefore, it is important enough for me to be here.
Hon. Chairman, Sir, let me say that, unfortunately Aadhaar like GST is really a lesson that should be obtained in the country in terms of bipartisanship. We have seen Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury taking the credit for Aadhaar saying that they initiated it. Now, they are opposing it. Unfortunately, the Treasury Benches today, are waxing eloquently in terms of Aadhaar. They were opposing it, when they were in the Opposition like the GST. Unfortunately, this is not good for this country. Therefore, I implore both the major political parties that in future at least when they know in their heart of hearts that there is something which is in the interest of the country, they should come up with constructive suggestions as we do in Odisha, rather than, as a matter of principle, just keep objecting.
Let me say that most of the issues today are settled by the Hon. Supreme Court’s judgement – majority 4:1 Judgement as well as the earlier judgement of Justice Puttuswamy which is the Right to Privacy Judgement. What the Government is really doing is tinkering a bit with the law. It will continue to tinker with the law. It is a new law. As this law distils and crystallises, we will see that many more amendments will come about. But the fact is that the basic fulcrum of the law is that the vires has been upheld and the constitutionality is upheld. Therefore, now, there is no question of going back on Aadhaar. Aadhaar is a good law; Aadhaar is a good practice. That is the first thing that we have to acknowledge.
In fact, the Odisha Government, right after the recent Constitutional Bench judgement, have given effect to it in large measure and we have been benefitted by it. Lakhs and Lakhs of people, who ought not to have been benefitted from the Government’s scheme particularly from the new KALIA Scheme that we have initiated recently for farmers’ welfare, have been weeded out. Thanks to Aadhaar. It is proved that it is beneficial in Odisha. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I believe that Aadhaar is a good law as the Supreme Court has said and it is good in practice and execution as well.
The misgivings that have been projected in this House and principally by a very ardent opponent of this Government who, I think, in principle, is TMC led by Ms. Mahua Mitra Ji who actually said that we are, in principle, probably happy to support this legislation, provided the other limb that the Supreme Court has mentioned, the Data Protection Bill, should be brought in simultaneously. That seems to be the basic sentiment of a certain section of this House. That sentiment, may I say, Hon. Chairman, Sir, is not unfounded. I think the Hon. Law Minister who is a very senior advocate himself, will see that the Supreme Court judgement is not just full of pious homilies. Practically, the Supreme Court judgement is in the nature of directions expressly given to the Government or, in any event, consented to the learned Attorney General.
Sir, I want to stress on a few passages of the Supreme Court judgement which are important as we are suffering from some practical problems because of the absence of the Data Protection Bill. I think it should have been really brought in along with this so that the House could have, on bipartisan basis, cleared both.
The Supreme Court has clearly said in Justice Sikri’s Majority Judgements and I am quoting:
“We have also impressed upon the respondents, as the discussion hereinafter would reveal, to bring out a robust data protection regime in the form of an enactment on the basis of Justice B.N. Srikrishna (Retd.) Committee Report with necessary modifications thereto as may be deemed appropriate.” This carries on all the way through : “Notwithstanding the statutory provision discussed above, we are of the view that there is a need for a proper legislative mechanism for data protection.” So, it is a virtual mandamus given to the Government.
It goes on to state that : “The Draft Bill and the Report cull out rights and obligations of the data fiduciary and data controller respectively”. It further states that : “There may be indeed scope for further finetuning of this law through a consultative process. However, we are not far away from a comprehensive data protection regime, which entrenches informational and data privacy within our laws and legal system. We hope that there would be a robust statutory regime in place in the near future”. This is as good as a mandamus given to the Government.
Justice Bhushan’s Judgement again concurs that : “The Report having been submitted, we hope that law pertaining to Personal Data Protection shall be in place very soon taking care of several apprehensions expressed by petitioners”. Here also, I think that the hon. Members like Shrimati Mahua Moitra and other speakers have indeed expressed the same kind of apprehensions.
Now, let me straightaway draw the kind attention of the hon. Minister -- since he is also in-charge of two very important Departments of IT as well as Telecom -- that information and data now is the new ‘oil’ of the 21st Century. This is going to be how the society is going to be driven going forward. Therefore, whoever controls information and data is going to be in this incredibly powerful position to be able to control our lives. We have seen in a country like the United States, which is a powerful country, where there is so much debate now on whether the US elections were actually influenced by Analytica, a British company, at the behest of another foreign power. There is a massive amount of debate on that issue in the United States. The reason I am saying this, and I do not intend to target ‘A’ company or ‘B’ company, but, for sure, we have a neighbour who is hell-bent on aggrandizing data and information from India and this is not going to be for the benefit of India and Indians. It is going to be for their benefit and their future because they actually believe in planning centuries ahead.
It is very ironical that Mr. Shashi Tharoor and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch who are completely opposite sides of the coin, yet they are on the same page as far as, for instance, this Chinese company called ByteDance, which promotes Tiktok and Helo in this country. Both of them are on the same page. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch has written a savage letter, a stinging indictment, to the hon. Prime Minister showing how this particular company is engaged in such iniquitous, nefarious, egregious activities in this country that …(Interruptions)
Sir, I had 10 minutes at my disposal, and it is not even 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, please. I am watching the clock like a hawk. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON : Sorry. The time allocated for you is just four minutes.
SHRI PINAKI MISRA: Kindly give me a couple of minutes more.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: I am just cautioning you. Definitely, this is a very important Bill where academic and intellectual exercise is required.
SHRI PINAKI MISRA : Mr. Chairperson, I would be the last one to waste the time of the House. It is in the interest that Members know what will happen.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: I am only cautioning you that the time allocated to you is over.
SHRI PINAKI MISRA : Kindly give me another couple of minutes.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.
SHRI PINAKI MISRA : The reason I am saying this is that three hundred million users in India alone are today using Tiktok. Two out of three Tiktok users are coming from India. So, can you imagine the amount of information and data that is being aggrandized by them? Their reply to Mr. Tharoor was that : “We have no existing relationship with the Chinese Government.”. What does that mean? It means that you had a past relationship, and going forward, there is no guarantee that you will not have a relationship in the future.
It is well-known, as the Swadeshi Jagran Manch letter says that any kind of under-bidding or under-cutting that takes place in these telecom sector tenders in India is done by these Chinese companies because they have the full backing, might and the power of the Chinese Government. Otherwise, there is no way that they would be doing it. They are sharing all their data with the Chinese companies as well as with the Chinese Government.
Eventually, it is very important that going forward, the Treasury Benches also recognise the fact that while today they may be beneficiaries of agencies like Tiktok and Helo because perhaps it is said that it was helpful in their winning the elections, tomorrow, the very same agencies and instrumentalities would turn against you. Therefore, you would be ‘hoist on your own petard’. Eventually, we are all going to be victims because we, as Indians, are going to be victims.
Therefore, I would urge the hon. Minister that the time has really come when companies, which are $75 billion to $100 billion companies, are operating in India with Indian money should be governed by some laws.
15.00 hrs By the way, they are paying people to be their users; to be giving them information; to be information providers. They are paying handsome amounts. It is also causing social tensions.
The other day, in Odisha, in a children’s paediatrics hospital, there were nurses on Tik Tok, who were dancing to Hindi music, in full nurses’ uniform. It is shocking to see what is happening because people are being paid for it. The hon. Minister is well meaning when he brings in this legislation in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court but I request him to kindly see that the other section or the other limb of it which the Supreme Court has virtually directed the Government to do. I request the Government to bring in your data protection Bill because we need protection from these kinds of egregious agencies which are otherwise going to create mayhem in this country.
With these words, I finish my deliberative process, and I would urge the Government to kindly consider this going forward. We are supporting the Government on this very important Bill.
SHRI RITESH PANDEY (AMBEDKAR NAGAR): Thank you hon. Chairperson, Sir, for giving me the chance to speak today. I stand here with the aim of opposing the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
Sir, without a robust data of protection Bill, the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill is an irresponsible legislation. While we can’t have in this country an adhoclegislation that simply determines when privacy will be accorded legal protection in the form of various laws, such as the Information Technology Act, the Indian Telegraph Act, the Indian Contract Act and the Aadhaar Act, what we don’t have is a comprehensive and an exhaustive definition of what constitutes as private data of the citizen. How it ought to be protected for the sake of privacy, and not for the sake of breaches or attempted breach? So, the need of the hour, hon. Chairperson, is this.
As the Supreme Court had recommended in its Five Judge Bench in 2018 as part of its landmark judgement which Shri Misra was just mentioning in K.S. Puttaswamy Versus Union of India is a robust - and I quote – data protection law that treats citizen’s fundamental right to privacy as established by Article 21 and Article 19a, as not just the basis of the law but also the purpose of it. So, only when we have such a robust framework, can be begin to safeguard citizens’ private data, and the rights and ownership over their private data. Until such legislation is in effect, even a voluntary or consensual use of Aadhaar data by private players is a gross infringement of privacy. At the very least, it is irresponsible. I have a few examples.
मैं यहां उपस्थित माननीय सदस्यों के साथ उसको शेयर करना चाहूंगा । अभी आधार डेटा तमाम प्राइवेट कम्पनियों के पास है । ये सारी कम्पनियां, चाहे वह फोन हो या बैंक अकाउंट हो, ये सब आपका आधार कार्ड नंबर लेकर आपकी सारी उपभोक्ता हिस्ट्री लेने का काम करते हैं । आप खुद सोचिए कि अगर आप अपने परिवार के साथ साल में दो बार छुट्टियों पर जाते हैं तो उसकी जानकारी उनको होती है । वे यह भी जानते हैं कि आप किस प्रकार की दवाइयां खरीदते हैं । आप क्या खाते हैं और कैसे कपड़े पहनना पसंद करते हैं ।
मान्यवर, मैं आपको यह भी बताना चाहता हूं कि ऐसी जानकारी अगर किसी इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी के पास पहुंचे और वह इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी यह जानती है कि आपके बच्चे को दमा की बीमारी है क्योंकि आप हर महीने चार हजार रुपये में दमा की दवाई खरीदते हैं । जब आप अपने परिवार के साथ साल में दो बार छुट्टी मनाने जाते हैं तो इंश्योरेंस कम्पनियां आपको ट्रैवल इंश्योरेंस बेचने के लिए आएंगी तो उसमें जो प्रीमियम चार्ज करना होगा, चूंकि वे जानती हैं कि आपके बच्चे को दमा है और जब उसको कवर करना होगा तो प्रीमियम को वह बढ़ा कर लगाएगी । इससे माता-पिता होने के नाते आपकी मजबूरी हो जाएगी कि आप उसे भारी प्रीमियम पर खरीदें । इस तरह से यह डेटा मिसयूज़ होता है । यहां हमारे सांसदगण बैठे हैं और ये जानते हैं कि तमाम ग्राम सभाओं के ग्राम प्रधानों के पास आज की तारीख में सभी का आधार डेटा और आधार कार्ड पड़ा हुआ है । आप यह सोचिए कि कोई ग्राम प्रधान किन्हीं असामाजिक तत्वों के हाथों में पड़कर किसी को दे देता है ।
आदरणीय मंत्री जी, तो यहां पर नहीं हैं ।…(व्यवधान) आदरणीय मंत्री जी आ जाएं । वह हमको भी सुन लें । हम नए सदस्य हैं । मंत्री जी आ जाए ।…(व्यवधान)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: You may continue your speech. The other hon. Ministers are present here…(Interruptions). Your time is very limited.
SHRI RITESH PANDEY: Sir, this is not fair.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: You please address the Chair.
श्री रितेश पाण्डेय : महोदय, अगर आप देखेंगे, तो सभी ग्राम प्रधानों के पास यह डेटा पड़ा हुआ है । अगर वे किसी अराजक तत्वों के हाथों में इस डेटा को दे देते हैं और वे किसी गरीब, मासूम व्यक्ति के पास चंद रुपयों के लिए चंद फार्मों के ऊपर साइन करा लेते हैं, तो उससे उनको मोबाइल फोन मिल जाएगा । किसी बैंक में अकाउंट खोल लेंगे । अगर वह व्यक्ति किसी आतंकवादी गतिविधियों में लिप्त होगा, तो वह किसी किसान, किसी मजदूर के नाम पर एक फोन हासिल करके, एक बैंक अकाउंट खोलकर इन गतिविधियों को अंजाम दे सकता है । यहां तक कि आज गांवों में तमाम फ्रॉड के केसेज सुनने में आते हैं । किसी के नाम का आधार कार्ड दिखाकर मोबाइल फोन लेकर, किसी के नाम पर खाता खोलकर उन मोबाइल फोन्स से तमाम बैंक फ्रॉड करके उन खातों में पैसा चला जाता है और उसकी धनउगाही होने का काम होता है । ये चंद उदाहरण हैं ।
Secondly, I would like to address the issue of reintroduction of access to Aadhaar data on the premise of national security. This is very, very important. The Government has attempted to reintroduce access to such data, which was determined unlawful by the hon. Supreme Court in 2018, by simply replacing the word ‘Joint Secretary’ with ‘Secretary’ in Section 33 (2) of the Aadhaar Act. This action by the Government goes against the recommendation of the Justice B. N. Srikrishna Committee which in its Report titled ‘A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians’ has recommended that replacing sole executive action in the context of surveillance with judicial or independent oversight observing that sole executive review in the lawful breach of citizens’ private data is not at par with other comparative democratic frameworks in Germany, United Kingdom and South Africa.
This attempt of legalising breach of citizens’ data in the name of national security is a dangerously powerful mandate in which it allows the Government to infringe the Fundamental Right to Privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution in article 21 and article 19 (a), which is, I quote, “is an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty”.
In the end, I would like to say that this Government during the last five years and especially during the last five months has proved itself extremely irresponsible when it is not determining who it considers ‘anti-national’, who it considers ‘against the interest of the nation’ and who it considers ‘a threat to national security’, be it journalists, academic students or ordinary citizens who exercise their Right to Expression and Freedom of Speech.
Hon. Chairman, I would like to conclude with what the hon. Prime Minister said in the House on the 25th of June. उन्होंने कहा था कि भारत में लोकतंत्र संविधान के पन्नों से नहीं पैदा हुआ है, लोकतंत्र हमारी आत्मा है ।
मान्यवर, मैं यहां पर यह कहना चाहूंगा कि बाबासाहेब के लिखे हुए संविधान में उन पन्नों में जो हमको अधिकार दिए हुए हैं, पहले उन अधिकारों को सुरक्षित किया जाए । बाकी जो अंतर्रात्मा में है, वह जगजाहिर है । इन्हीं सब बातों के साथ मैं यहां पर बैठे हुए सभी सदस्यों से यह निवेदन करूंगा कि इस मुद्दे पर दलगत राजनीति से ऊपर उठकर…(व्यवधान)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude.
श्री रितेश पाण्डेय : महोदय, इस देश के हित में अपना मत देने का काम करें । मेरा उनसे अनुरोध है कि यहां पर राष्ट्रवाद को छोड़कर राष्ट्रहित में इस बिल में और सुधार करने की जरूरत है।…(व्यवधान) उसको जरूर लागू करें । धन्यवाद ।
श्री अजय मिश्र टेनी (खीरी) : माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं आधार और अन्य विधियां (संशोधन) अधिनियम, 2019 का समर्थन करने के लिए खड़ा हुआ है । आधार अधिनियम, 2016 सहित भारतीय तार अधिनियम, 1885 धन शोधन निवारण अधिनियम, 2002 की कुछ धाराओं में संशोधन का प्रस्ताव किया गया है ।
माननीय सभापति महोदय, आधार अधिनियम, 2016 के द्वारा भारत में रहने वाले सभी लोगों को 12 अंकों की एक यूनिक आईडी उपलब्ध कराकर एक विशिष्ट पहचान देने का प्रयास किया गया था ।
सभापति महोदय, जब यह प्रारंभ हुआ तो उसके साथ-साथ जिस तरह से कांग्रेस के लोगों ने माननीय अटल बिहारी जी द्वारा जो सन् 2002 में प्रयास किया गया था, उसके क्रम में बिना विधेयक लाए सदन में, उन्होंने आधार को एक मान्यता दी थी । उस समय हमारे मुख्य न्यायाधीश थे पुट्टास्वामी जी । उन्होंने एक रिट याचिका - 494 और उसके साथ 38 याचिकाओं को माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर किया था । लगभग छह साल की कानूनी लड़ाई के बाद माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कुछ संशोधनों के साथ इसे भारत सरकार के पास भेजा, जिसके कारण भी इस विधेयक को आज लाने का काम किया गया है ।
सभापति महोदय, इसके साथ-साथ मैं यह कहना चाहता हॅूं कि इसके लिए हम लोगों को पीछे जाना पड़ेगा । व्यक्ति की विशिष्ट पहचान न होने के कारण सरकार की बहुत सारी योजनाएं, चाहे सब्सिडी हो, चाहे ईंधन की सब्सिडी हो, खाद्यान्न की सब्सिडी हो, पेंशन हो, उन सबका दुरुपयोग हो रहा था । इसका एक उदाहरण इतिहास में भी मिलता है । सन् 1985 की एक घटना है, जिसके विषय में यह कहा गया था कि उस समय के तत्कालीन प्रधान मंत्री जी के समय में कालाहांडी, ओडिशा में फानूस नाम की एक महिला थी, जिसने अपनी 12 वर्ष की ननद को केवल 40 रुपये में इसलिए बेच दिया था, क्योंकि उसके परिवार के पास खाने का साधन नहीं था । उस समय के प्रधान मंत्री श्री राजीव गांधी जी ने इस बात को स्वीकार किया था कि गरीबों के उत्थान के लिए जितनी भी योजनाएं बनाई जाती हैं, उनके लिए जो पैसा हम भेजते हैं, उसका केवल 15 प्रतिशत तक ही लोगों तक पहुंच रहा है । 85 प्रतिशत पैसा ऐसे दलालों के बीच में, ठेकेदार और ऐसे लोगों के बीच जाता है । इन लोगों ने एक तरह से ग्रुप बना रखा है, ये बिचौलिए हैं । वे इतने प्रभावी हो गए हैं कि उनके पास तक जाते-जाते वह पैसा समाप्त हो जाता है ।
सभापति महोदय, मैं आपको यह कहना चाहता हॅूं कि जिस समय लोग इस आईडी के लिए संघर्ष कर रहे थे, मैं बहुत संक्षेप में एक बात कहना चाहूंगा कि एक साहित्यकार ने एक छोटा सा नाटक लिखा था, जिसमें एक व्यक्ति की पत्नी की मृत्यु हो जाती है, तो वह उसके अंतिम संस्कार के लिए हरिद्वार गया होता है । उसकी पेंशन देने के लिए लोग आते हैं और बाइचांस पड़ोसी कह देते हैं कि उनके यहां तो मृत्यु हो गई है । जो सरकारी आदमी होता है, वह यह नोट कर लेता है कि उस व्यक्ति की मृत्यु हो गई है । उसके बाद उसको अपनी पहचान साबित करने के लिए, मैं संक्षेप में ही कहूंगा कि पहले वह अपना जनेऊ दिखाता है, तो कहता है कि पंडित हो, यह तो मैंने मान लिया, लेकिन तुम फलां हो, यह कैसे मान लिया जाए । फिर वह टीका दिखाता है, कपड़े पहने दिखाता है, लेकिन उसकी सारी बातों के साथ, वे यह तो कहते हैं कि आप फलां धर्म के हो सकते हैं, आप फलां क्षेत्र के हो सकते हैं, लेकिन आप वही व्यक्ति हैं, इसकी पहचान कैसे हो । इसलिए यह आवश्यक था कि कोई एक ऐसी पहचान हम लोगों को मिले । जिस समय कारगिल का युद्ध हुआ था, उस समय माननीय अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी जी की सरकार थी । वाजपेयी जी ने उस समय आडवाणी जी के नेतृत्व में मंत्रियों का एक समूह बनाया, जिसमें माननीय फर्नांडीस जी, जसवंत सिंह जी और यशवंत सिन्हा जी शामिल थे । उनको कहा गया था कि एक मल्टीपरपज़ राष्ट्रीय पहचान पत्र की जरूरत है, इसलिए इस पर काम किया जाए । उन्होंने एक नया अनुच्छेद भी जोड़ने की बात कही थी । चूंकि वह गृह मंत्रालय के अधीन था तो गृह मंत्रालय के जो हमारे राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्ट्रार थे, उनको वह जिम्मेदारी दी गई कि आप इस पर काम करें । लेकिन वह काम जैसे ही शुरू हुआ, उसके बाद माननीय अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी जी की सरकार चली गई और जब कांग्रेस की सरकार आई तो उन्होंने जल्दी-जल्दी में बिना किसी विधेयक को लाए हुए, आधार को एक संस्थान का रूप दे कर इसके लिए रजिस्ट्रेशन प्रारंभ किया । उसका दुष्परिणाम यह हुआ कि सन् 2012 में आधार के खिलाफ एक रिट याचिका आई । छह साल की लंबी लड़ाई के बाद उस पर एक निर्णय आया और आज उस निर्णय को हम लोगों ने, जैसे हम सन् 2016 में विधेयक लाए, उसको भी उसमें शामिल किया । इसमें 38 याचिकाएं और शामिल हुईं । उन सारी चीजों को मिला कर जो निर्णय आया है, उसमें सुधार करते हुए, जो प्रावधान करना है, उसके लिए हम यह विधेयक लाए हैं ।
माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं उसका समर्थन करते हुए इस बात को जरूर कहना चाहता हॅूं कि जब सन् 2014 में आए तो उस समय हमारे सामने बड़ी चुनौती थी कि हम देश के लोगों को, जो अभी तक वंचित हैं, जिनको सब्सिडी का लाभ नहीं मिल रहा है, उन्हें एक पहचान दें । पहले हम सीधे-सीधे खाद्यान्न के लिए सब्सिडी देते थे ।
वह सब्सिडी, जो लोग पात्र होते थे, वहाँ तक न पहुंच कर बीच में ही बिचौलियों के हाथ में समाप्त हो रही थी । ऐसे समय में लोगों की ज़रूरतें पूरी न हो पाना, सरकार के सामने एक बड़ी चुनौती थी । वर्ष 2014 में जब हमारी सरकार आई, तो हमारी सरकार के सामने एक प्रश्न चिह्न था कि कैसे हम सही पात्रों का चयन करें और उनकी ज़रूरतों को पूरा करते हुए उनकी सुविधाओं को बढ़ाए । हमारे प्रधान मंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी ने पहले दिन ही यह कहा था कि यह सरकार गरीबों की सरकार है, इसलिए गरीबों के हित में जो आवश्यक है- घर, मकान, शौचालय, गैस वगैरह उनको दिया जाए और सही पात्र को दिया जाए । उस समय तक यह हो रहा था कि जहाँ बिचौलिये, खाद्यान्न का हम लोग देख रहे थे कि आधे से ज़्यादा खाद्यान्न रास्ते में ही बिक जाता था । कैरोसिन का उपयोग डीज़ल में मिक्सिंग के लिए हो रहा था । एल.पी.जी. की सब्सिडी करोड़पति लोग खा रहे थे । ऐसे समय में इन चुनौतियों का सामना करते हुए हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी ने आधार को एक सम्बल बनाते हुए ऐसे लोगों की पहचान को जोड़ा । आज मैं यह कह सकता हूँ कि इन पाँच सालों में जो हमारे सामने चुनौती थी कि हम तेज़ी से काम करें, उसके परिणाम आज दिखाई दे रहे हैं । हम लोगों ने इन पाँच वर्षों के अंदर एक करोड़ 40 लाख से ज़्यादा ऐसे गरीब लोगों को, जिनके पास घर नहीं थे, उनको घर देने का काम किया है । 10 करोड़ से ज़्यादा शौचालय बनाए हैं, 7 करोड़ से ज़्यादा परिवारों को हम लोगों ने एल.पी.जी. के कनैक्शन फ्री में उपलब्ध कराए हैं । ‘आयुष्मान भारत’ योजना के माध्यम से हम 50 करोड़ लोगों के लिए योजना लेकर आए हैं । इसका 32 लाख लोगों को लाभ मिला है । जन-धन के एकाउंट खोले । सब्सिडी आज सही जगह पर पहुँच रही है । पात्र लोगों को मिल रही है और लोगों को सुविधाएँ देने का हमारा जो संकल्प था, उनकी ज़रूरतें पूरी करने का संकल्प था, उसको हम लोगों ने पूरा करने का काम किया है । उसके परिणामस्वरूप मैं यह कह सकता हूँ कि आज आधार के विषय में चाहे जितने प्रश्न चिह्न उठाए जाए, लेकिन आधार एक ऐसा यूनिक नम्बर है, जिसने लोगों की सुविधाओं के लिए और पात्र व्यक्ति के चुनाव के लिए बहुत बड़ा योगदान किया है । पात्र लोगों तक सही सुविधाएँ पहुँची हैं, इसका लाभ हमको आधार के कारण ही मिला है ।
माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं यह कहना चाहूँगा कि बहुत सारी बातें विपक्ष के द्वारा कही जा रही हैं, लेकिन हम सब का जो उद्देश्य है, वह उद्देश्य यह है कि हम गरीब और जो पात्र व्यक्ति हैं, उन तक सुविधाएँ पहुँचाएं । उन सुविधाओं को पहुँचाने के लिए आधार एक बहुत ज़रूरी नम्बर है । उसके समर्थन में हम सभी लोगों को एक होकर इस विधेयक को पास करना चाहिए । मैं यह कह सकता हूँ कि आधार न सिर्फ भारत के डिजिटल भविष्य को दिशा निर्देशित कर रहा है, बल्कि 132 करोड़ लोगों के देश में दुनिया के डिजिटल नेतृत्व के मार्ग पर तेज़ी से अग्रसर होने में भी आधार हमारी मदद कर रहा है । आधार के द्वारा हम न्यू इंडिया की मजबूत बुनियाद और अभिनव सम्भावनाओं के द्वार खोलने में सफल हुए हैं ।
माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं आपसे यही कहना चाहूँगा कि इस बात से कोई भी इन्कार नहीं कर सकता, चाहे वह पक्ष में बैठे हुए लोग हों या विपक्ष में बैठे हुए लोग हों, आधार किसी व्यक्ति को स्पष्ट पहचान प्रदान करने में सशक्त, सुरक्षित और मजबूत मंच है । यह पहचान न्यूनतम सूचना, अनुकूलतम भिज्ञता और संज्ञेय डाटाबेस के तीनों बुनियादी सिद्धांतों पर आधारित है । जाति, वर्ण, सम्प्रदाय, वंश और विभिन्न सूचनाओं आदि के आधार पर लोगों का वर्गीकरण किए जाने की आशंकाओं से पूरी तरह से मुक्त है । इसलिए मैं सभी से यही कहूँगा कि सारी शंकाओं का निराकरण हमारा यह विधेयक कर रहा है । आधार के कारण ही आज ज़रूरतमंद लोगों की ज़रूरतें पूरी हो रही हैं । यह देश आगे बढ़ रहा है और जो नए भारत का, हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी का, हमारी सरकार का और इस देश का संकल्प है, उस संकल्प को पूरा करने में आधार का बहुत बड़ा योगदान रहने वाला है । मैं सभी से यही अनुरोध करते हुए अपनी बात को समाप्त करूँगा कि हम लोगों को कम से कम आधार, जिसके द्वारा हम गरीबों को उनकी सुविधाएँ देने का काम करने जा रहे हैं, सभी लोग सर्वसम्मति से इस विधेयक को यहाँ पारित करें । बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।
SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SADANAND SULE (BARAMATI): Sir, thank you very much. I stand here on the day the Economic Survey has just been published. It is a very interesting observation that the Economic Survey gives you the vision of the Government. Sir, if you see the Volume 1, with your permission, I would like to quote and read. It says, “…data ‘of the people, by the people for the people’.” A point was made earlier that data is the new oil.
It really makes an interesting chapter. With your permission, I would like to read just a few lines. Under the headline ‘Private sector firms as beneficiaries’, it reads, “The private sector may be granted access to select databases for commercial use. Consistent with the notion of data as a public good, there is no reason to preclude commercial use of this data for profit. Undoubtedly, the data revolution envisioned here is going to cost funds. Although the social benefits would far exceed the cost to the government, at least a part of the generated data should be monetised to ease the pressure on government finances.” Is there a problem with the Government’s money? Is that why you are selling data? If you are selling data, then this whole debate is meaningless; and after all the points which the earlier Members have stated, there is nothing more to say.
There is another part to it, “Alternatively, data sets may be sold to analytics agencies that process the data, generate insights, and sell the insights further to the corporate sector...” It is a shame. This is people’s data. …(Interruptions) “…which may in turn use these insights to predict demand, discover untapped markets or innovate new products.” I don’t know what the new products are; God help us. “Either way there is a tremendous scope for private sector to benefit from the data, and they should be allowed to do so, at a charge.” Again, you are selling. “Fortunately, stringent technology mechanism exists to safeguard data privacy and confidentiality even while allowing the private sector to benefit from this data.” There is nothing really left for me to speak. It is a shame. This is what has come today. I want a straight answer from this Government. What is this? It is completely in contradiction with what the hon. Law Minister of India has said here. I want a clear clarification because you are cheating the common man. I want this on record. The common man is cheated according to what they are doing. What privacy laws are we talking about? It was really interesting because the hon. Minister in his opening remark said how Aadhaar is something that they created. It is very interesting. GST, it is their Bill; Aadhaar, it is their Bill; Direct Benefit Transfer, it is their Bill; Food Security is their Bill; NREGA is their Bill; PAHAL, which they have renamed as Ujjwala, is their Bill. I would just like to put this straight on record for this entire House that all these Bills were introduced and implemented under the leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh during the UPA. …(Interruptions) I would like to put something else on the record.…(Interruptions) As far as demonetisation is concerned, we are not taking credit for that. …(Interruptions) I am also supporting it with a document. This is a document of the Standing Committee of Finance (2011-12) on the National Identification Authority of India. If I remember, all of you were sitting on this side and we were on that side. As everybody knows, the Chairperson of the Committee of Finance is always from the Opposition. At that time, Shri Yashwant Sinha was the Chairperson of the Committee and the entire Committee had objected to this. This is all on record and I am willing to place it. They had said in their observations that this will make illegal immigrants entitled to an Aadhaar Card. What Shri Ajay Kumar was just now saying in his speech and what the BJP’s line was in 2011, shows the constant double face of the NDA. When UPA brings something, they will object to it. But when they are in power, they are only growing on the programmes which the UPA started. It is really sad and shameful that they have benefitted from whatever the UPA had done.
There are two queries that I would like to raise. The London School of Economics and the McKenzie’s have shown great loopholes of privacy in this. I just want to ask a question to the hon. Minister. The General Data Protection Regulation came into existence and India also has it, but it is only in public domain. Why all these objections if the NDA was so worried about illegal immigrants getting Aadhaar Card? Why have they not brought the data protection Act?
I would like to ask a pointed question. Be it UK, be it USA, or be it Australia, all these countries do not have this identification. My question to you is this. If this is aimed at only people who are receiving subsidies from the Government, why is it mandatory?
The hon. Minister said people were so happy that they gave it for nursery admissions. Shri P.P. Choudhury said people were willing to give it to the banks. Nobody had a choice. Thank God, when the Supreme Court struck it down, they backed off. The inflated balloon which the Government had made was actually deflated, thanks to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, nobody was doing it out of choice.
Today, even if your child goes on a trip, the school is asking for an aadhar card. His aadhar card is connected to yours. He is talking about all that data with great pride. You can apply for a passport. You have a fast system now. Why is aadhar card compulsory now? What is voter’s identity card then? We all have voter’s identity cards. I cannot really understand why aadhar card has to be used. They take great pride in saying 65 crore people took mobiles – I do not buy that claim – because there was no option. It is almost becoming like a police state.
I would just bring up two quick points before you. The only point I want to make is this. The Government is insisting that they have saved money. This is one figure I would like the hon. Minister to clarify. He says that they have saved over a lakh crore rupees. I really want to know considering all the benefits and subsidies where he has got this figure from. In many districts, I see – you would also see when you go to a village – a lot of people say, ‘We do not fall in BPL category. Please put us in BPL category because it is 2011 census that is still going on.’ So, it does not mean that just because of aadhar intervention they are saving lakhs of people. People are still hungry. Look at what happened in Bihar. A hundred and fifty children have not died because of litchi; they have died because of malnutrition. If aadhar is so effective and you are serving so many lakhs of people, how are there so many malnutrition deaths in this country? I think, this is all a hoax.
I am not against technology. This entire House in one voice is supporting transparency and honesty. It is not that only they are full of honestly. Let us not get into this high morality that this Government is obsessed with. I would just like to request this Government not to misuse our information. It is only going to become a police state if we do not get our act together.
There are a lot of cases still going on in the Supreme Court. I would just like to finish my speech my quoting Nietzsche, who is a great German philosopher, ‘All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not necessarily the truth.’ So, I want to tell the BJP that just because they are in power, it does not mean all that they say is the truth.
Thank you.
15.28 hrs (Shri P.V. Midhun Reddy in the Chair) SHRI P.K. KUNHALIKUTTY (MALAPPURAM): Sir, to talk about the Bill is not a question of who support this Bill and who are opposing it.
We all know that the world is becoming more and more digital; countries are becoming totally digital; and all the societies are becoming ditigal. So, digitalising is very important and this technology has helped make things simple and easier for citizens. As he said, transparency and getting benefits to the citizens are all good. The Supreme Court and that too a full Bench has debated the issue over a long time. Members have mentioned about the importance of privacy and the aspect of leakage. This was established here by those Members who spoke earlier. Why is it that the Government is not bothered about that? Is it because of any interest? Or, is it that they just do not care about that?
We are not against the Bill. There are reforms which were initiated by the UPA earlier. I was in charge of information technology for almost ten years in my State. Kerala is a State where things went on systematically.
We had campaigned for digital literacy. Later on, we initiated the process for its connectivity. We made the people of our State almost IT-literate. Aadhaar is also very popular there. People use it voluntarily for many purposes. We are not against that. Nobody can afford to be against that because the world is moving towards it. The world is becoming digital. Society is becoming digital. Today, everything is dependent on that and that is why a lot of invention has taken place in this country. Everything is IT-enabled. Voting is IT-enabled, though it has its own problems.
But the question connected with the use of technology is that of privacy and transparency. The full Bench of the Hon. Supreme Court had a quite long debate on this and it made certain recommendations. It recommended that we should not make it mandatory. But the Government has not cared about it. The Government has not taken into consideration the entire debate and the verdict of the Supreme Court while bringing this Ordinance as well as the Bill and that is why we are criticising it.
Nobody is against the technology. Nobody is against any reform. Reform, based especially on the new technology, is the need of the hour and we should go ahead with it. But the Government should have brought the Data Protection Bill along with this Bill. Why is the Government hesitating to bring that Bill? The Government should have honoured the privacy of the people. It should have taken into consideration the dangers that the leakage of data can create. It has been established by Members here that leakage of data can have many-fold consequences. It can affect the country’s security. It can affect the citizens’ security. It can lead to a number of issues which can create problems for the nation itself. But the Government is very careless and it has not taken into consideration the verdict of the Court at all. Otherwise, the Government would have brought the Data Protection Bill along with this Bill.
As was mentioned by some Members, the Government is in the habit of tying the cart before the horse. At the time of demonetisation also, the Government had just declared that tomorrow onwards everybody will be transacting digitally. How can, in a country like India, one can declare that from tomorrow all the transactions will be done digitally? That is how the Government handles things. That has proved to be the biggest blow to India’s economy. We are even now struggling to survive from that. That is the reality.
Such reforms, which do not take into consideration that India is a country where people are not even literate, are of not much use. How can people, who are not literate, make use of this particular technology in doing certain things? The Government has to take care of all these things before bringing in such legislations. The Bill should have enough privacy protection and transparency. This was the basic recommendation of the hon. Supreme Court. The Government has not looked into that at all.
That is why, we are pointing out this. There is no question of not opposing. I have said that we are all for this particular reform, that is, Aadhaar. This is popular among people also. But along with that, the Data Protection Bill should also come up. I want to point out that.
In that spirit, I oppose this Bill.
श्री मनोज तिवारी (उत्तर पूर्व दिल्ली): सभापति महोदय, आपने मुझे एक बहुत ही महत्वपूर्ण टॉपिक पर बोलने का मौका दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देता हूं । आज स्वामी विवेकानंद जी की पुण्यतिथि है, उनको याद करते हुए और हमारे यहां दिल्ली में भी बड़ी अच्छी रथ यात्रा ओडिशा की तरह होती है । जय जगन्नाथ हो रहा है, उसे याद करते हुए मैं लॉ मिनिस्टर श्री रविशंकर प्रसाद जी को धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूं । वे अपने आप में बहुत ही विद्वान एडवोकेट भी हैं । वे हमेशा दूसरों की बातें सुनकर सुधार करने में कभी भी पीछे नहीं रहते हैं ।
महोदय, मैं वर्ष 2009 से सुन रहा हूं कि एक 12 डिजिट का यूनिक आइडेंटिटी नंबर आ रहा है, फिर उसके बाद यूआईडीएआई के द्वारा उसे संचालित किया जाएगा । भारत के नागरिकों को यह प्राप्त होगा । यह सब मैं सुनता रहता था । मैंने तब सोचा भी नहीं था कि मैं यहां पर आऊंगा । मुझे यह सुनते-सुनते वर्षों हो गए । जब मैं इस ऑगस्ट हाउस में आया, तब वह बिल यहां आया और पास हुआ । उसका जो सबसे ज्यादा फायदा हुआ है, मैं दिल्ली का सांसद हूं, लेकिन मैं मूलत: बिहार का रहने वाला हूं । हम लोग उस गांव के रहने वाले हैं, जहां हम अपनी मां को जब बोलते थे कि नाश्ता बनाओ, तो मेरी मां बोलती थी कि आग मांग कर लाओ । हम आग की भिक्षा मांगने जाते थे । हम इसलिए जाते थे कि हमारे घर में गैस कनेक्शन नहीं होता था और इसके लिए सोच भी नहीं सकते थे । मां बोलती थी कि बाबू जा, आग मांग कर ले आ । हम लोग गोइंठा पर आग मांग कर लाते थे, तो मेरी मां बहुत देर तक फूंक-फूंक कर चूल्हा जलाती थी, तब जाकर खाना मिलता था । हम लोग बिना नाश्ता किए जाते भी नहीं थे । ऐसी स्थिति में जो इसका फायदा हुआ, उसका हमें सबसे ज्यादा आभास तब मिला, जब एक कार्यक्रम में हमारे देश के यशस्वी प्रधान मंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी ने एक डेटा प्रस्तुत किया । ‘मैं भी हूं चौकीदार’ कार्यक्रम में वे बोल रहे थे । उन्होंने बताया कि आधार कार्ड आने से पहले, इसके लागू होने से पहले हमारे देश में 8 करोड़ ऐसे लोग थे, जो धरती पर पैदा ही नहीं हुए थे, लेकिन उनके लिए यहां से सब्सिडी भी जा रही थी, सारी सुविधाएं भी जा रही थीं । हमें सवाल पूछने का मन करता है कि ये कहां जा रही थीं, किसके पास जा रही थीं, कौन से तरीके से जा रही थीं? इसमें कम से कम 45 से 50 हजार करोड़ रुपये तक का देश का खजाना लुट रहा था, वह बचाया गया ।
अभी थोड़ी देर पहले कांग्रेस के नेता अधीर जी ने बोला, अभी वे सदन में नहीं हैं, कि आप नकल करते हैं और आपको जल्दबाजी क्या है? हमारे मंत्री से कह रहे थे कि जल्दबाजी क्या है? हमें यह समझ में नहीं आया कि जो अच्छी चीजें थीं, जनता के हित में थीं, उनको शुरू करने के बाद, समय रहते उसे लक्ष्य तक पूरा क्यों नहीं किया जाता था । हमें यह सवाल उठाने का मन करता है कि आप संसद के समय का सदुपयोग करने वाले हमारे विद्वान मंत्री के लिए मेजें थपथपाने की जगह यह सवाल करते हैं कि जल्दी क्यों है? हमारे पास समय कहां है? देश के गरीबों को, देश के उन सभी लोगों को जिनको इस तरह की सुविधाएं प्राप्त करनी हैं, उन एक-एक लोगों की सेवा करें, इसके लिए हमारे पास समय कहां है? एक-एक घंटे का सदुपयोग होना चाहिए । मैं इसके लिए माननीय मंत्री जी को बहुत धन्यवाद करता हूं ।
‘मैं भी हूं चौकीदार’ कार्यक्रम में प्रधान मंत्री ने एक और डेटा दिया था कि विभिन्न योजनाओं में जो डॉयरेक्ट बेनीफिट दिए जाते थे, आधार कार्ड आने के बाद लगभग 90 हजार करोड़ रुपये की इसमें बचत हुई । 90 हजार करोड़ रुपये ये और 45-50 हजार करोड़ वो, तब जाकर हमें समझ में आता है कि हमारी मां को, हमारे घर में गैस कनेक्शन मिलने के लिए कितना बड़ा काम हुआ ।
हमने एक दृश्य देखा था, हमारे सभी साथियों ने देखा होगा । बसपा के साथी बोल रहे थे, पता नहीं उनको आधार का नाम लेते ही दमा होने लगता है और बंगाल के साथियों को बदहजमी जैसे होने लगती है ।
सभापति महोदय, आजकल कट मनी की चर्चा है । जब तक आधार नहीं था तब तक मनी ही कट हो जा रही थी, पैसा आधा पहुंचने की बात तो दूर, वह कहां जाता था, किसके पास जाता था, पता नहीं होता था । प्रधान मंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी को धन्यवाद । मैंने वह दृश्य देखा है, जब प्रधान मंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी पहली बार प्रधान मंत्री बनने जा रहे थे तो उनकी माता जी ने उनके हाथ में सौ रुपये रखे थे । पूरा देश पूछ रहा था कि मोदी जी ने इतने वायदे किए हैं, क्या ये सौ रुपये से ही पूरे हो जाएंगे? हमारे जैसे पहली बार बने सांसद को भी लगता था कि सौ रुपये एक माँ ने दिए हैं । हम भी चिंतित हो रहे थे कि नरेन्द्र मोदी जी सारे अपेक्षाओं को कैसे पूरा करेंगे? लेकिन आज हम खड़े होकर बड़े गर्व से कह सकते हैं कि हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी ने लोगों की अपेक्षाओं को पूरा किया और जो अपेक्षाएं कभी देश ने सोची नहीं थी, उनको भी प्रधान मंत्री जी ने इस आधार की बदौलत पूरा करके संतोष दिया है । मोदी सरकार और हमारे मंत्री जी लोकतांत्रिक प्रक्रिया को बहुत मानते हैं ।
मैं अपने कई साथियों की बातें सुन रहा था । 27 जुलाई, 2018 को बी एन श्रीकृष्णा समिति ने जो रिपोर्ट दी, मंत्री जी उसी को मजबूत कर रहे हैं । 24 अगस्त 2017 को माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट की न्यायपीठ ने जो कुछ कहा, मंत्री जी उसी को मजबूत कर रहे हैं । अभी मंत्री जी जाते हैं और कुछ न कुछ करने लग जाते हैं । यहां तक कि अभी जो बातें उठ रही हैं, मैं धन्यवाद करता हूं कि ऐसे नेतृत्व के रहते हम आधार को जितना मजबूत करेंगे उतना ही फायदा होगा ।
मेरा सभी से प्रार्थना है, इसे याद रखा जाए कि आधार कार्ड भ्रष्टाचार का सबसे बड़ा शत्रु है । जिनको भ्रष्टाचार प्रिय है, वह कभी इसका समर्थन नहीं करेंगे । इस भ्रष्टाचार रूपी राक्षस को मारने के लिए आधार अधिनियम में जो संशोधन आया है, मैं उसका समर्थन करता हूं । मैं पूरी सभा से चाहूंगा कि सभी मिल कर इसका समर्थन करें । अभी और भी संशोधन की जरूरत पड़ेगी, उसे भी करना चाहिए, कोई भी भ्रष्टाचारी बचना नहीं चाहिए और किसी भी निर्दोष को सजा नहीं होनी चाहिए । ऐसी धारणा को रखते हुए हम इस बिल का समर्थन करते हैं और सभी से प्रार्थना करते हैं कि आप भी समर्थन करें ।
श्री कौशलेन्द्र कुमार (नालंदा): महोदय, आपने मुझे आधार और अन्य विधियों में (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2019 की चर्चा में भाग लेने का मौका दिया, बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद । यह बिल सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आधार कानून 2016 पर 26 सितम्बर, 2018 को दिए गए फैसले के आलोक में लाया गया है । आधार पर अदालत ने बहुमत से आधार के जरिए सभी नागरिकों को सूचनाएं हासिल करने पर रोक लगा दी ।
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Hon. Member, Mahua Moitra Ji, we are not supposed to talk to the officials in the Gallery.
श्री कौशलेन्द्र कुमार: सभापति महोदय, इसके साथ ही आधार कानून 2016 की धारा 57, धारा 32 (दो) और धारा 47 आदि को रद्द कर दिया गया था ।
यह बिल परिणामस्वरूप आधार कानून में संशोधन करने के लिए लाया गया है । मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करता हूं । इस बिल के बारे में, सत्ता पक्ष हो या विपक्ष हो, आधार का तो सब लोगों ने समर्थन किया है, कांग्रेस पार्टी के लोग पहले से ही समर्थन कर रहे थे, लेकिन आज कुछ साथियों का जवाब उलटा आ रहा था । अभी हमारे साथी बता रहे थे, अगर सबसे ज्यादा आधार से लोगों को लाभ मिला तो गरीबों को मिला, जो समाज में अंतिम पंक्ति में बैठने वाले लोग हैं, उनको मिला । इसलिए मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करता हूं और सरकार से आशा करता हूं कि वह आधार बिल संशोधन करके लाई है, जैसे पेंशन, राशन कार्ड से जुड़ी गरीबों के लिए कल्याणकारी योजनाओं के अनेक काम होंगे । यह बिल इसके साथ भ्रष्टाचार को रोकने के लिए जरूरी था । मैं समझता हूं कि देश में 88 करोड़ बैंक खाते आधार कार्ड से लिंक हो गए हैं । इसी प्रकार 70 करोड़ के आसपास मोबाइल फोन्स भी आधार कार्ड से लिंक हो गए हैं । गैस सब्सिडी भी आधार कार्ड से लिंक कर दी गई है । यह कोई साधारण बात नहीं है ।
मैं समझता हूं कि समाज का उपेक्षित वर्ग भी कल्याणकारी योजनाओं का हिस्सा बन गया है । इसी प्रकार से सेवाएं बेरोकटोक मिलने लगी हैं । सरकार का मानना है कि आधार से देश की डिजिटल यात्रा और रफ्तार पकड़ेगी । यह बिल 132 करोड़ देशवासियों को डिजिटल पर भरोसा, क्षमता और विश्वास बढ़ाने में मददगार साबित होगा । आलोचकों का कहना है कि आधार से आम नागरिकों की व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता, स्वायत्तता, चयन करने की स्वतंत्रता पर खतरा है । इसके लिए ऐतिहासिक उपाय लोग ढूंढ रहे हैं । यह देखा गया था कि कुछ लोग आधार डाटा का व्यावसायिक इस्तेमाल करने लगे थे, इससे लोगों में संशय बढ़ने लगा था ।
आधार अब लोगों के लिए फायदे की पहचान बन चुकी है । 122 करोड़ से अधिक आधार कार्ड जारी किए जा चुके हैं । सरकार सभी प्रकार से संतुष्ट है कि आधार के डाटा में कोई गड़बड़ी नहीं कर सकता है । इसके गलत इस्तेमाल को रोकने के लिए सभी पुख्ता इंतजाम कर दिए हैं । आधार पूर्णरूपेण संरक्षण और स्वायत्ता को सुनिश्चित करने वाला कानून है । अत: मैं अपनी पार्टी जदयू की तरफ से इस बिल का समर्थन करता हूं ।
SHRI P. R. NATARAJAN (COIMBATORE): Hon. Chairperson, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the discussion on the Aadhar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
Sir, this amendment Bill violates the Supreme Court’s decision on the Aadhaar project and puts the data and privacy of Indian residents in jeopardy. Lack of transparency, public consultation and scrutiny by any Parliamentary Committee are all glaring omissions. On behalf of my Party, I strongly oppose this Bill.
This Bill is in contravention of the judgement of the Supreme Court. The question is whether it is voluntary or mandatory. According to the Government it is voluntary in nature, but all the Government organisations including Reserve Bank of India say that it is mandatory. So, it is against the order of the Supreme Court.
I would like to refer to the problematic clauses of the Bill. First, amendment to Section 4 of Clause 7 of the Aadhar Bill; amendment to Section 4 of Clause 24 of the Indian Telegraph Act; insertion of a new Section 11A in Clause 25 in respect of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. All these amendments are meant to benefit the private managements.
So, I am opposing this Bill. The Bill may allow private entities to continue to hold Aadhaar data in disregard for the Supreme Court judgement. The Government’s latest move encourages continued collection of citizens’ data through the use of Aadhaar-based authentication which again is contra to the Supreme Court judgement and it reflects the intention of the Government.
Fourthly, privacy and security concerns related to Aadhaar remain unaddressed. A special law like the personal data protection law must be there. It is not there now. Public consultation is not done by the Government properly. So, I oppose the Bill.
SHRIMATI ANUPRIYA PATEL (MIRZAPUR): Hon. Chairman Sir, on behalf of my Party, Apna Dal, I rise to speak in support of the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill which has been brought to replace the Ordinance promulgated on 2nd March, 2019.
As we all know, this Bill also intends to amend the Aadhaar Act, 2016, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
We all understand the background of bringing this Amendment Bill today. It was in 2017 that the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution. It then went on to further examine the various claims which were made with respect to the validity of the Aadhaar Act only to further rule that Aadhaar does not intervene with the right to privacy of any individual. But at the same time, it also banned mobile service providers and banking service providers to use Aadhaar authentication as a means of verifying the identity of their clients without a law permitting to do so.
It was in the context of these developments that the new Aadhaar (Amendment) Bill is being brought by the Government. It makes certain very important provisions which says that now an individual may voluntarily use his Aadhaar number to establish his identity either by Aadhaar authentication or by means of an offline verification.
Also, in the case of a child’s enrolment, the agency has to necessarily seek the permission of the parents or the guardian and once the child attains the age of 18 years, he may even cancel his Aadhaar number.
The third and the most important provision is, the mobile service providers or the banking companies can verify the identity of their clients by using three important documents. It could be Aadhaar authentication or passport or it could be any other document which is notified by the Government of India.
This is where my first question arises. I request the hon. Minister to pay attention to this point. Consider a situation where the other documents which we are talking about in the provisions are not being notified by the Government. Then the only two options that we are left with is either Aadhaar authentication or passport. Now, if an individual does not have a passport also, then the only option that he or she is left with is Aadhaar authentication. That means we are back to square one. We are coming to a situation where we are making Aadhaar authentication mandatory.
I would like the hon. Minister to please explain as to what we are supposed to do in such a situation, if it arises, which most likely will arise in some or the other cases.
The second question that comes to my mind is, the Supreme Court has said that Aadhaar authentication data should not be retained for a period of more than six months but Aadhaar regulations do not specify any certain duration. Would the hon. Minister shed some light on what exactly is going to be the duration for retention of Aadhaar authentication data?
The third question which comes to my mind is regarding biometric information. As per the Bill, biometric information includes our finger prints, our photographs and our iris scans. And the Bill says that another category or type of biometric information can only be decided by the UIDAI.
What I wish to say is that the other categories of biometric information must be prescribed by the Parliament and not by the UIDAI. The Parliament is supreme. So, I want to understand from the hon. Minister as to what is the reason for giving preference to UIDAI over Parliament in prescribing the newer forms of the biometric information.
Hon. Chairperson, the next question that comes to my mind is regarding what the other hon. Members from the BJD, the TMC and the Congress Party also said. There was a Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna which suggested a draft Data Protection Bill. I really want to understand if the Government has any intention of introducing that Data Protection Bill or not. If at all it has the intention, when is it going to bring that Data Protection Bill?
So, these are certain queries which came to my mind. I would request the hon. Minister for pinpointed clarifications while he replies to the House. That is all I wanted to say. I support the Bill. Thank you very much.
श्री संजय काका पाटील (सांगली): सभापति महोदय, मैं आपकी अनुमति से आधार संशोधन विधेयक, 2019 के समर्थन में अपने विचार प्रस्तुत करने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । वर्तमान आधार संशोधन विधेयक मूल अधिनियम को सुदृढ़ करने तथा बैंकिंग और मोबाइल कनेक्शन लेने जैसी सेवाओं के लिए आधार को एक ऐच्छिक पहचान-पत्र के रूप में उपयोग सुगम बनाने के उद्देश्य से लाया गया है । इस विधेयक के पारित होने से आधार के वैधानिक व कानूनी अस्तित्व को एक नई मजबूती और ताकत मिलेगी ।
माननीय सभापति जी, यह आधार विधेयक सिर्फ नाम का ही आधार नहीं है, बल्कि भ्रष्टाचार मिटाने का, समाज के निचले तबके के सशक्तीकरण का, हमारी सरकार की साफ नीयत का और पंडित दीनदयाल उपाध्याय जी के अंत्योदय के विचार को पूरा करने की ओर उठाया गया एक महत्वपूर्ण कदम है । मूल अधिनियम का उद्देश्य एक सक्षम, पारदर्शी और सुनियोजित तंत्र से राज्य सहायता आधारित विभिन्न सरकारी लाभों और सेवाओं को उन वर्गों तक पहुंचाना है, जिनके कल्याण और लाभ के लिए उन्हें आरंभ किया गया है । भारत की संचित निधि पर पड़ने वाले व्यर्थ के बोझ को हटाया जा सके तथा ऐसे लोगों की पहचान की जा सके जो कि विभिन्न सरकारी योजनाओं का गैरकानूनी ढंग से लाभ उठाकर सरकारी राजस्व पर बड़ा बोझ डालते हैं । इस आधार के माध्यम से हमारे देश के अनेक क्षेत्रों में व्याप्त पहचान के संकट के समाधान को भी दिशा मिलेगी क्योंकि आधार के माध्यम से भारतीय नागरिकों को एक डिजिटल पहचान मिलेगी, जिससे सरकारी धन के दुरुपयोग तथा भ्रष्टाचार पर नियंत्रण तो होगा ही, साथ-साथ अवैध रूप से रह रहे विदेशी घुसपैठियों की पहचान भी हो पाएगी । इससे भविष्य में विदेशी घुसपैठ पर रोक लगेगी जिसके कारण अनेक राज्यों में तनाव की स्थिति बनी हुई है ।
सभापति महोदय, वास्तव में भारत में आधार दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा डिजिटल आई.डी. प्लेटफॉर्म है, जिसमें 123 करोड़ से भी अधिक लोग शामिल हैं । विश्व में कहीं भी डिजिटल शक्तिकरण से बड़ी योजना न बनी है और न बनी होगी । आधार अधिनियम में ऐसे सर्वश्रेष्ठ प्रावधान किए गए, जिनसे अर्थव्यवस्था के प्रत्येक क्षेत्र में कैशलैस और पेपरलैस होने की दिशा में अग्रसर होकर इस व्यवस्था को और सुचारू और सुगम बनाया जा सकेगा । इससे आधार प्रमाणीकरण और के.वाई.सी. जैसी सेवाएं सुलभ हो गई हैं, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप भारतीय व्यापार और सरकारी तंत्र के कार्य में यह महत्वपूर्ण परिर्वतन आया है । इसके साथ-साथ बैकिंग प्रणाली में एक नई क्रांति का सूत्रपात होगा तथा समय के साथ-साथ जीवन के हर क्षेत्र में एक नई उपयोगिता उभरकर सामने आएगी । आधार को एक सांविधिक और कानूनी मान्यता मिलने के पश्चात सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली पी.डी.एस. के माध्यम से चल रही विभिन्न परियोजनाओं के अन्तर्गत गैस, खाद, उर्वरक और चावल आदि की आपूर्ति की व्यवस्था हो जाएगी ।
16.00 hrs बीजों पर मिलने वाली सब्सिडी का सर्वोत्तम उपयोग हो पाएगा । इसके साथ-साथ आधार के वैधानिक रूप लेने के पश्चात् सरकार द्वारा एलपीजी, केरोसीन, फूड और फर्टिलाइजर्स पर दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी का बोझ भी लगभग एक लाख करोड़ रुपये कम होगा । इसके साथ-साथ विभिन्न योजनाओं में भी कैश ट्रांसफर से अगले कुछ वर्षों में भारी लाभ होने की संभावना है । सरकार ने आज ही खरीफ की 14 फसलों के लिए एमएसपी की घोषणा की है । एमएसपी के अंतर्गत सरकार द्वारा खरीदे गए अनाज की अदायगी सरकार द्वारा किसानों को सीधे उनके खाते मैं कैश ट्रांसफर करके की जा सकती है, जिससे व्यवस्था से दलालों को हटाया जा सकेगा ।
16.01 hrs (Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi in the Chair) इससे हमारी वेलफेयर स्टेट की अवधारणा को और मजबूती मिलेगी तथा सामाजिक न्याय से जुड़ी विभिन्न कल्याणकारी योजनाओं का लाभ सीधे पारदर्शी ढंग से उन कमजोर और पिछड़े वर्गों तक पहुंचेगा, जिनके कल्याण के लिए ये योजनाएं आरम्भ की गई हैं । इस संबंध में आपको स्मरण होगा कि पूर्ववर्ती सरकार के समय ऐसी योजनाओं के अंतर्गत मिलने वाले लाभ का लगभग 6 प्रतिशत हिस्सा ही वास्तविक लाभार्थियों तक पहुंच पाता था । मैं आज गर्व के साथ कहना चाहता हूं कि आधार के माध्यम से हमारी सरकार ने विगत आर्थिक वर्ष में लगभग ढाई लाख करोड़ रुपये का डायरेक्ट बेनिफिट ट्रांसफर किया है, जिसमें एक पैसे का भी भ्रष्टाचार नहीं हुआ है ।
हमारी सरकार ने आधार के माध्यम से लगभग तीन करोड़ अस्सी लाख नकली एलपीजी कनेक्शनदारों का पता लगाकर 42,000 करोड़ रुपये की बचत की है । इस सन्दर्भ में डायरेक्ट बेनिफिट ट्रांसफर से संबंधित जानकारी अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण है । 56 मंत्रालयों द्वारा चलाई जा रही 1,119 योजनाओं में से 452 योजनाएं डायरेक्ट बेनिफिट ट्रांसफर पर आधारित हैं । 2019-20 के दौरान मार्च, 2019 तक 45,105 करोड़ रुपये डीबीटी के माध्यम से दिए गए । इस संबंधित वर्ष के दौरान लेन-देन के आंकड़ों की संख्या 34 करोड़ रही है । यह सब देखकर, मैं इस विधेयक के समर्थन के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । मंत्री जी बहुत अच्छा बिल लेकर आए हैं, मैं इसके समर्थन में खड़ा हूं ।
SHRI MANISH TEWARI (ANANDPUR SAHIB): Madam Chairperson, I rise to speak on the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
Before I come to the substantive aspects of the Amendment Bill, I have a submission which you may like to flag for the consideration of the hon. Speaker that when the Government moves an Amendment Bill, perhaps it would be appropriate to move the original Bill along with it because it becomes very difficult to get the context of the amendments if the original Bill is not appended to the Amendment Bill. Perhaps the Chair and, of course, the Treasury Benches would consider it. I think it would really set a healthy precedent in terms of understanding what really the Amendment Bill sets out to do.
THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE, MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND MINISTER OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD): Madam Chairperson, I would like to inform the hon. Member that while replying to the debate, I will myself be placing the original Section 7, where just two words are being added. I will explain that.
HON. CHAIRPERSON : No, he is saying something else. He is saying the whole original Bill should be appended.
SHRI MANISH TEWARI: Madam Chairperson, it was not in the context of a particular section. This was a generic observation with regard to all Amendment Bills that when you move an Amendment Bill, if you can annexe the original Bill, at least the context becomes clear. That is the short point I was trying to make.
This particular Amendment Bill actually provides a very good opportunity to revisit the founding principles of the entire Aadhaar Programme. On the 28th of January, 2009, the then Government – it was the UPA Government – came out with a Notification creating the Unique Identification Authority of India. That Notification listed 13 objectives which the UIDAI was supposed to achieve.
It is unfortunate that the Government decided to pick one of them, which is defined usage and applicability of UIDAI for delivery of various services when it came to enacting legislation, and that too in the form of a Money Bill in order to provide a legal architecture for a framework which had been in place between 2009 and 2016. Now, what exactly was the rationale of the entire Aadhaar programme? The rationale of the entire Aadhaar programme was that there were millions of people who were bereft of any identity and therefore they had a difficulty in being able to access basic services जैसे ड्राइविंग लाइसेंस, राशन कार्ड, पैन कार्ड और ऐसे कई प्रमाण पत्र जो सुनिश्चित कर सकें कि उनकी आइडेंटी क्या है । आधार का जो कार्यक्रम है, उसे कार्यान्वित करने का यह उद्देश्य था । जब 2016 में सरकार विधेयक लेकर आई, जैसे मैंने पहले कहा कि जो एक उद्देश्य था, उसे मूल आधार मानकर, this Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was enacted. When this Act was enacted, it created a consternation across the country. It seemed as if the entire intent of the Government was to reduce the human-being to a single number. I would like to draw the attention of this House, without casting aspersions on anyone that when last time in history this was attempted, it had very devastating consequences. That is why, a number of concerned citizens decided to move to the Supreme Court in order to challenge the very vires of this Aadhaar Act 2016 and that resulted in two very seminal judgements – a 90 judgement which upheld the Right to Privacy to be a Fundamental Right and the second judgement which actually substantively deliberated on various aspects of the Aadhaar Act. This Amendment Bill, which the Treasury Benches have brought, which the Government has brought, actually seeks to give effect to those two judgements of the Supreme Court of India.
The germane question is, does this Amendment Bill actually give effect to these two judgements which the Supreme Court had delivered. I would like to draw the attention of the House to one very salient aspect of that judgement which has been overlooked in the Amendment Act and that is the right to be forgotten. With your permission, I would like to just read a few lines from the concurring judgement of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. Para 636 says:
“The European Union Regulation of 2016 has recognized what has been termed as the Right to be forgotten. This does not mean that all aspects of earlier existence are to be obliterated, as some may have a social ramification. If we were to recognise such a similar right, it would only mean that an individual, who is no longer desirous of his personal data to be processed or stored, should be able to remove it from the system where the personal data information is no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest.” The judgement further goes on to elaborate the conditions under which this particular right may not be exercised. However, this Bill, which has been brought by the Government gives the child the right that when he attains majority, he can possibly have his Aadhaar Card or his Aadhaar identity to be cancelled. Now, the germane question which arises is that when that right is available to a child, why is that right not available to an adult.
In this world, the number of people who are there in the digital space and equal number of people also want to exercise the Right to be Forgotten, they want to exercise the inalienable Right to Privacy, which has been upheld as a Fundamental Right by the majority judgment or a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court.
I would like to submit to the hon. Minister for his consideration that the Right to be Forgotten must also form a part of the Aadhaar Act. Therefore, if somebody’s Right to be Forgotten does not transgress and impinge upon certain very essential national security prerequisites, he should have the right to be able to delete his Aadhaar Number and be not a part of the Aadhaar ecosystem. I would like the Minister to kindly consider this suggestion because there is a difference between deactivation and cancellation. The Aadhaar Act provides for deactivation under certain circumstances -- most essentially that if you do not use your Aadhaar Number for three years. But there is an inherent distinction between deactivation and the right to voluntarily be able to cancel your Aadhaar Number.
There are just a few more things that I would like to flag for the Government’s consideration. Now, Section 33 (1) of the Aadhaar Act provides for oversight by the Government in case of release of Aadhaar data. I would like to ask myself that ‘why does this oversight have to be executive oversight?’ The Supreme Court in its judgment has called for judicial oversight. May I very humbly submit for the consideration of the Government and this House that ‘why can this not be substituted by Parliamentary oversight?’ There has been a long pending demand that even the functioning of the intelligence agencies should be subject to Parliamentary oversight. I remember that when I was a Member of not the previous, the Lok Sabha before that, I had moved a Private Members Bill in that regard.
Therefore, this may just be your good place to begin that when the personal data of citizens has to be disclosed, that oversight should not be exercised by the Executive; that oversight should be exercised by the Legislature because I do not think that in our Constitutional scheme, even with the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, if the Legislature was to exercise that oversight, it would fall foul of the Constitutional scheme.
Madam Chairperson, the third thing, which I would like to flag for the consideration of this House and the Government is the Chapter on Civil Penalties, Clause 33(b) (1) of the Bill. The Bill mandates that the decision of the Adjudicating Officer, who is a Joint Secretary rank officer of the Government of India, should actually be subject to an appeal before the TDSAT. I ask myself a question that ‘why do you not make the decision of the Adjudicating Officer subject to the writs jurisdiction of the court?’ The reason I say this is that because if you look at the structure of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, in 2004 we had entrusted it with the function of adjudicating disputes in addition to Telecom, which arise in the broadcasting sector. Then, we decided to also make it the Cyber Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority. The TDSAT is already overloaded. It is not able to discharge these multifarious functions.
So, under these circumstances, rather than entrust another responsibility upon the TDSAT, may I submit to the hon. Minister that perhaps it would be appropriate, since the decision of an Adjudicating Officer is an Executive decision, and in any case, is subject to the writ jurisdiction of the courts, it may be worthwhile to pro-form that in the Bill, rather than have an appeal to the TDSAT?
Let me come to my two most fundamental objections to this particular Amendment Bill, which have already been flagged by my colleagues earlier; and they pertain to Clause 24 and 25 that seek to amend the Telegraph Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Now, a bare reading of the Supreme Court Judgement, which upheld the vires of the Aadhaar Act, makes it very evident that it partially struck down Section 57 of that Act which deals with private cooperate entities being able to access Aadhaar data.
Now, there is a certain amount of chicanery which is involved, if I may use the word, in the formulation of this particular provision. It adds the word ‘voluntary’.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: I do not think, it is Parliamentary.
SHRI MANISH TEWARI : Well, in the sense, if it is not Parliamentary, it can be expunged or you can move an objection to that Mr. Minister.
PROF. SOUGATA RAY (DUM DUM): The word ‘chicanery’ is not unparliamentary.
SHRI MANISH TEWARI : Anyway, the Minister or the Government can move an objection to that.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sougata Roy ji, a little humour should be allowed in the course of this long debate. That is what I told the hon. Member.
SHRI MANISH TEWARI : The point is well taken Mr. Minister. In so far as Section 57 is concerned, the intent of the Supreme Court Judgement was to have an explicit bar with regard to private entities being able to access Aadhaar data. Now, by amending the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as also allowing telecom companies and banking companies to be able to access Aadhaar data by simply inserting the word ‘voluntary’, it essentially means nothing. If you are in a situation whereby that is the only method in which you will be able to access a particular service, it goes against the Constitutional scheme where the citizen is at the core of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the Minister may consider amending or revisiting this particular provision.
My final point is this. If data is the new oil and the Government is in possession of the personal data of 122 crore citizens, what stops the Government from becoming a data refinery? The reason why I make this point consciously is that if you read the Economic Survey in juxtaposition with certain provisions of this particular Bill, it makes it amply evident that the intent of the Government, as expressed in the Economic Survey, is to allow corporate entities to be able to monetise that particular data.
I think, under those circumstances, Madam Chairperson, these are extremely serious concerns which would impinge upon the Right to Privacy and I would urge the Government to consider all these objections very very seriously.
Thank you very much.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Shrikant Eknath Shinde. You have five minutes and please stick to the time because there are several other speakers to speak. We have to also keep time for Division, etc. डॉ. श्रीकांत एकनाथ शिंदे (कल्याण): माननीय सभापति महोदया, आपने मुझे ‘आधार’ पर अपनी बात रखने का मौका दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपको बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद देता हूँ ।
आज ‘आधार’ के माध्यम से अलग-अलग स्कीम्स में सब्सिडी की राशि सामान्य मानवी तक पहुँचाने का काम हो रहा है । जब एक सामान्य व्यक्ति को प्रत्यक्ष रूप से किसी भी प्रकार की सब्सिडी देने की बात आई, तो सरकार की सबसे बड़ी मुश्किल यह थी कि सामान्य व्यक्ति बैंकिंग व्यवस्था से कोसों दूर था । बैंकिंग व्यवस्था को सामान्य मानवी के जीवन का हिस्सा बनाने का काम अगर किसी ने किया है, तो वह प्रधान मंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी ने किया है । इसके तहत ‘जन-धन’ योजना का निर्माण हुआ और लगभग 30 करोड़ खाते खोले गए । इन बैंक खातों को आगे ‘आधार’ से जोड़ने का कार्य भी सम्पन्न हुआ । आगे चलकर ‘जन-धन’ और ‘आधार’, सरकार और सामान्य मानवी के बीच बने संबंधों की मिसाल बन गयी ।
वर्ष 2016 के अधिनियम में संशोधन लाने का मकसद व्यापक है । The aim is the targeted delivery of financial and ther subsidies, benefits and services. इस बिल को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भी अपना अनुकूल फैसला सुना दिया । ‘आधार’ के संबंध में राइट टू प्राइवेसी मूलभूत अधिकार है, यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है ।
मैं सरकार को धन्यवाद देता हूं कि उसने इस बिल में संशोधन करते हुए आधार का प्राइवेसी और सिक्योरिटी का जो विषय था, उसे कई प्रमाण तक हल किया है और डेटा प्राइवेसी का दुरुपयोग करने पर रोक लगाई है । इस संशोधन के बाद प्रत्येक व्यक्ति को स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह अपना आधार नंबर किसी कंपनी को दे या नहीं दे । There will be no compulsion on anyone.
इसमें एक संशोधन यह होगा जिसके तहत आधार नंबर के साथ एक नंबर पर्याप्त होगा, जिसके तहत असली आधार नंबर को छिपाया जा सकता है । सिर्फ गोपनीयता का मूलभूत अधिकार ही नहीं, बल्कि व्यक्ति की सुरक्षा का सम्मान करना भी इसका उद्देश्य है । 18 की उम्र पूरी होने के बाद व्यस्क बच्चा अपना आधार नंबर रद्द कर सकता है । इसकी कोई सख्ती तो नहीं होगी, पर मैं सरकार से दरख्वास्त करूंगा कि जब भी उसके पास आधार नंबर कैंसिल करने का निवेदन आए, तो उस व्यक्ति का पूरा डेटा डिलीट किया जाए । चाहे उस व्यक्ति का आइरिस स्कैन हो या बायोमैट्रिक्स हो, सभी प्रकार का अभिलेख अगर सरकार के पास होगा, तो शायद भविष्य में इसका दुरुपयोग होने का चांस बढ़ जाएगा । आज 112 करोड़ लोगों के पास आधार है, मतलब आधार कार्ड पूरे देश का आधार बन चुका है ।
Aadhaar has become an important tool for transformation, good governance and empowerment of people. It has brought transparency in delivery system and stopped leakages. Now, because of Aadhaar, benefits directly reach the beneficiary. इसमें अब किसी बिचौलिये की जरूरत नहीं रही । बिचौलियों की दुकान बंद करने का काम इस सरकार ने किया है चाहे डीबीटी हो, एलपीजी सब्सिडी हो, स्कॉलरशिप हो, मनरेगा हो या पेंशन हो । मैं आज यहां एक छोटा सा उदाहरण देना चाहूंगा । Pre-Aadhaar, the demand for jobs in drought-stricken areas was lower by eight per cent than in unaffected areas. Post-Aadhaar, the number of people demanding work was higher by 17 per cent in drought-prone areas. मनरेगा का जो उद्देश्य था, वह आधार के आने के बाद फुलफिल हो गया । Total savings because of Aadhaar linkage in just two-and-a-half years, in just a few schemes were Rs.49,000 crore. गवर्नमेंट ने अब तक 7.4 लाख करोड़ रुपये अकाउंट में ट्रांसफर किये हैं और 1.4 लाख करोड़ रुपये बचाए हैं । मैं एक और उदाहरण देना चाहूंगा ।
An interesting event happened in Bangalore in July of 2017; three mentally challenged kids were reunited with their long-lost parents. Narendra, Omprakash, and Neelakanta were three differently abled kids in an orphanage in Hosur. Their lives witnessed a miracle when the UIDAI team in its drive of enrolling them for Aadhaar found they were already registered, for good. It took very less time for the officials to then trace the kids to Indore, Jharkhand, and Tirupati respectively. One can feel how thankful and blessed the parents should have felt. Aadhaar is definitely starting to prove its mettle.
Compliance through Aadhaar is now voluntary. But most Indians are not aware of how their personal information can be used or misused. Neither are they aware of their legal rights. Reportedly, there also have been some errors in the registration process. Some people had received Aadhaar with wrong photographs or fingerprints. The detailed personal information is not being treated with the required sensitivity for privacy concerns. Major financial transactions are linked with information collected in Aadhaar. Data leaks are a gold mine for criminals who now use sophisticated hackers.
Aadhaar’s principal goals were to end fraud and to reach welfare schemes to the poorest. So, I urge upon the Government to look into this data leakage and I would also like to suggest that data stored by mobile companies or by any other agencies should be permanently deleted so that its misuse can be prevented. The Government therefore needs to find a solution that would not compromise individual privacy concerns while making the process of identity authentication easy and cost-effective. With this, I and my Party, Shiv Sena, support this Bill. Thank you.
*SHRI M. SELVARAJ (NAGAPATTINAM): Madam Chairperson. Vanakkam. I thank you for allowing me to speak on Aadhaar and related laws Amendment Bill. I wish to express my views on this Bill where we discuss the use and need of Aadhaar card. Aadhaar is an identity of the common man. This is the slogan of the Union Government. At the time of its introduction, Government called it as private data pertaining to an individual. Every citizen of this country has various identity cards. At the time of birth we get birth certificate. While getting education, we acquire school certificates. Once we attain 18 years of age, we get Voter I card. After marriage we get ration card as an identity. We have commercial license when engaged in a profession. We have PAN card when we pay tax; and driving license for driving vehicles. Government employees do possess an identity card issued by their Office. Even though we have different identities, whether or not we want this Aadhaar is a question bothering our minds very often. I wish to remind that Hon. Supreme Court has not made Aadhaar mandatory. Moreover what is the need for giving importance to Aadhaar card by this Government. Aadhaar is a private document of an individual. Generally, in order to get a mobile connection, the Aadhaar card details are sought by the private companies like Jio, Airtel, Vodafone and others. I want to ask how the privacy of the individual concerned is protected.
Nowadays bank accounts and other documents are linked with Aadhaar. Anti-scoial elements engage in fraudulent acts to siphon off money from the people be it an ordinary poor person or a rich one. Through hacking and cracking these anti-social elements take away the hard earned money without the knowledge of the innocent people. They fall prey to these anti-social elements. These incidents are taking place throughout the country. Police personnel through cyber crime department are trying to nab these culprits. But already Aadhaar has the biometric information. Now the Amendment 2AA talks about eco system. Aadhaar eco system included enrolling agencies, register requesting agencies, offline verification seeking entities or any entity or group of entities as may be specified by the regulation. While seriously looking into collection of biometric information for Aadhaar, it is important to say that we came to know through newspapers, one of the pillars of democracy, and on social media that Aadhaar Cards were thrown away near banks of the rivers, on the road side, and near garbage centres. This is due to the private companies which are authorised to print Aadhaar cards. They have done the maximum damage to this system. With the advent of technology, morphing and mimicry are used to cheat people. The future of poor people is at stake. Aadhaar is not mandatory for receiving subsidies from the Government. In that case what is the need for an amendment to the Aadhaar Act of 2016?. Madam, I entirely oppose this Bill. Thank you. Vanakkam.
SHRI P. RAVEENDRANATH KUMAR (THENI): Madam, thank you for the opportunity to place my views on the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill 2019 on behalf of my AIADMK Party.
I wholeheartedly support this Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
The present Bill is brought forward by the Government with an aim to ensure the safeguard for personal information of Aadhaar card holders and their individual identity.
The issue of Aadhaar card was conceptualized a decade before but it has been implemented effectively only after the year 2014 by our hon. Prime Minister. There was a perception at the initial stage of this scheme that the technology envisioned for this scheme is unrealistic, and when this is being encountered with operational problems, that would be amplified in a large scale. Further, in view of the fact that our country has different kinds of people with different culture and tradition, maintenance of Aadhaar card system was considered as a challengeable one.
But now this has been achieved by the Government under the great leadership of hon. Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi Ji, and this amendment is the perfect example of his ability for overcoming challenges.
Aadhaar is now backed by a robust and healthy law. This Act is playing a significant role in linking the physical with the digital to facilitate seamless delivery of services in a transparent manner. The JAM trinity, that is, 31 crore Jan Dhan bank accounts, 123 crore Aadhaar and 121 crore mobile phones, the delivery of welfare measures and benefits directly to the bank accounts of the poor under the DBT, have led to a saving of Rs.1.41 lakh crore during the past five years because the digital identity removes middlemen and fictitious claimants.
This Bill will amend three laws, namely the Aadhaar Act, 2016, the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Out of 130 crore people in the country as many as 123 crore people have reposed faith in Aadhaar. Our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi Ji strengthened it with the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019. It empowered people, significantly reduced corruption and improved public service delivery to benefit poor citizens.
Subsequent to this amendment, no individual shall be compelled to provide proof of possession of Aadhaar number or undergo authentication for the purpose of establishing his identity unless it is so provided by a law made by Parliament.
The move is aimed at making Aadhaar ‘people friendly’. The new amendment uses the word ‘voluntary’ repeatedly in order to highlight the voluntariness of Aadhaar verification.
It will also pave the way for the use of alternative virtual identity number to conceal the actual Aadhaar number of an individual. The Bill seeks to give a child an option to exit from the biometric ID programme on attaining 18 years of age. Earlier, a young adult did not have the provision of opting out.
The proposed amendment makes a provision in Section 8 of the Aadhaar Act which provides an alternative means of identification if a person fails to authenticate himself through Aadhaar due to illness, injury or infirmity owing to old age or any other technical reason.
It proposes deletion of Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act relating to use of biometric identifier by private entities.
This amendment gives power to the UIDAI to issue directions to any entity in the Aadhaar ecosystem.
The changes proposed include a civil penalty of up to Rs.1 crore on entities that violate the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, with an additional fine of up to Rs.10 lakh per day in case of continuous non-compliance.
With a vision to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy, which is the focal point of our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s, this ‘New India’ push is centred on Digital Aadhaar with three key areas, namely (1) utility to every citizen, (2) governance and services on demand and (3) digital empowerment of citizens.
Whichever Government had proposed Aadhaar, our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi Ji, who, having ultimate noble intentions of ending corruption in the welfare of the citizens, deserves all the praise for cordially implementing Aadhaar to eradicate all malpractices of multiple and false documents, throughout the country. In view of these good features, I support this amendment. Thank you.
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI (HYDERABAD): Thank you, Madam, Chairperson. I stand here to oppose the Bill. This is a classic example of halala. The Supreme Court has said that the private entities cannot get the Government data. The marriage was dissolved between the Government and the private entities. So, this is the classic case of halala.
HON. CHAIRPERSON : I hope you are against it.
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI: Madam, there is no halala in Islam. But in the governance, this is halala. …(Interruptions)
This Government is dancing to the tune of private industry and commercial profit rather than protecting the privacy of individuals. This purported Bill, which the hon. Minister has moved, is a marriage between the State and the corporate powers which consolidated and centralized all the powers in their hands.
Thirdly, this Bill also shows us the ill effects of electoral bonds. If an electoral bond is given to any party, including mine, the world does not know who has given it. There is a saying in the public – ‘you give us electoral bond, after you come in power, we will make you James Bond’. This is the classic case of that.
Madam, why do I say that? Let us see clause 24, which amends Section 4 of the Act. This completely violates the fundamental rights, the right to livelihood, the right to equality and everything. Unfortunately, this Government does not believe in jio aur jeene do. This Government only believes in ‘Jio, Jio, Jio, Jio and Jio’. That is why they have brought in this Bill.
Madam, they have asked for humour, I request them not to take me seriously. …(Interruptions) ऐसा लग रहा है कि आप मेरा एनकाउंटर कर देंगे …(व्यवधान)
श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद: ओवैसी साहब, मैं आपके ह्यूमर को भी सीरियसली लेता हूं ।
श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी : बहुत शुक्रिया सर । लेकिन आपका चेहरा ऐसा बता रहा है कि आप मुझे …(Interruptions)… *ऐसा मत कीजिए सर…(व्यवधान)
Madam, what does the Supreme Court says in respect of Section 33(1). …(Interruptions)
श्री गणेश सिंह (सतना): सभापति महोदया, इन्होंने जो बातें कहीं हैं, ये बिलकुल गलत हैं । इनको कार्यवाही से निकलवा दीजिए । …(व्यवधान)
श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी : बिलकुल निकाल दीजिए ।…(व्यवधान) सॉरी सर, आपको गुस्सा आ गया है, पानी पीजिए …(व्यवधान)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: The words used by the hon. Member may please be removed. That should not go in record.
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI : Madam, you are an eminent lawyer, you can understand my language, the Minister cannot.…(Interruptions)
In respect of Section 33 (1), the Supreme Court said that Aadhaar holder should be heard and not just the UIDAI. You do not do that.
In respect of Section 33 (2), again the Supreme Court asked to have a sitting High Court judge. But you do not follow it. You are violating it.
Then, what did the Supreme Court say about private entities not getting the information? They called that dissemination and spread of private information to private entities is a vice. You are making it a virtue. I congratulate you. You do not see a vice in it but see a virtue in it. That is why you bring in this Bill.
Madam, when the Government says that it is ‘voluntary’, I want to say that it is not ‘voluntary’. If you read the Bill carefully, it says, ‘the relevant entity shall identify clients’. As a law student we are taught what the word ‘shall’ mean. You cannot pull over our eyes. You want to help private entities. I do not know why this Government has so much love for private entities. Why are you afraid of them? A man living in a huge building in Mumbai cannot take on the Government of India in New Delhi. Why are you succumbing to him?
Madam, I will conclude after talking about clause 8. Bringing it in the Bill means you are decreasing the powers of Parliament. Why are you doing it, when you believe in the separation of powers? The Parliament is sovereign. Clause 8, which mentions about Section 23 under clause 9, will make UIDAI impartial arbitrator. You will have no control over it. The UIDAI can appoint anyone, who will have conflict of interests. How can you stop them? The Revenue Secretary is the Head of GSTN. The same can happen over here. Why are you reducing the powers of Parliament? Why are you bringing down the dignity of this august House? Today you are a Minister, tomorrow you may not be there. Today I a Member, tomorrow definitely I will not be here. But why are you demeaning this House by bringing in this Bill?
Then, comes the issue of offline verification.
Madam, a terrorist attack happened in Pathankot despite our Prime Minister going to Sharif’s house. Did those terrorists have Aadhaar Card? This online and offline verification will lead to fraud. I do not know why you are bringing this.
Madam, I conclude because of paucity of time. The Minister says that they have brought it because of the Supreme Court’s judgement. Sir, let me bring it to your notice as you are an eminent lawyer. Your clause 5 violates the judgement mentioned on page 387. Your clause 5(7) violates paragraph 319 of the judgement. Your clause 6(a) violates paragraph 390 of the judgement. Your clause 2(aa) violates paragraphs 402 and 333 of the judgement. Your clause 11 violates paragraph 408 of the judgement. Your clause 12 violates paragraphs 408 and 333 of the judgement. Your clause 18 violates paragraph 409 of the judgement. Your clause 23 violates the judgement of the Supreme Court as mentioned in page 410. So, this is unconstitutional.
Be rest assured that if you pass this Bill on the basis of brute majority, this will be challenged in the Supreme Court of law. You are doing a crime over here for which the coming generation will have to suffer.
Thank you.
SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU (SRIKAKULAM): Madam Chairperson, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this very important Bill, the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019. I have been listening to all other senior Members who have spoken before me and most of the points I wanted to raise have already been put on the table. So, I would like to be very concise since the time is also very concise and put forward the points that I want to make on behalf of my party.
Firstly, I do not think that there is any discussion on what the Aadhaar is intended to do. The way it started, it was for the betterment, for the efficiency and transparency in the way the Government wanted to disburse its funds to the poor and rendering of Government services or money reaching the poor. That is something which is still agreed upon by all Members on each and every side.
What is for discussion right now is the other side of this Aadhaar Bill which infringes on the personal privacy and the data security. These are the two issues that have been mentioned in the Supreme Court judgement also in the K.S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India. The judgement said that the Aadhaar Number and the Aadhaar-based authentication by private entities is unconstitutional and mandated linking of mobile connections with Aadhaar is disproportionate and unreasonable State compulsion and also linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts is also unconstitutional. This is what the Supreme Court says in its judgement.
Now, I would like to ask the Government what part of this is missing from the Bill. The Government is bringing this Bill just to show to this House and to the country that the Supreme Court has said something regarding Aadhaar and I will need to do something, but how much of the Supreme Court judgement is being translated into this Bill is not shown clearly. That is what I want to point out right now. What is the privacy issue? The other Members have also mentioned that the Data Protection Act is the need of the hour. It has to be brought forward first. That needs to be tabled and discussed thoroughly. Until each and every citizen of this country is sure about whatever data is going out from his privacy, it is being protected, I cannot make sure to pass this Aadhaar Bill. That is not clearly shown by this Government.
The other thing is that allowing the private companies to still hold Aadhaar data is not right. They have put in the word ‘voluntarily’, but that is not the case. What is there on the paper is very much different from what will happen on ground. So, the hon. Minister needs to answer clearly how deleting data from these private entities will be made possible.
First of all, I will quote some words from the prominent telecom companies. After the Supreme Court judgement, one of them says that ‘Aadhaar based verification addresses the security concern of the country and is inconvenient to the customer’. That is against what the Supreme Court is saying. The other one, much important bigger player, which Owaisi saheb has also mentioned, says that ’90 per cent of subscription for our company was through Aadhaar. So, Aadhaar authentication should continue and Central Government should make a law so that this Aadhaar-enabling continues.’ I would only like to ask this to the Central Government. Is it listening to the common citizens of this country or is it listening to the private entities of the country? What happened is that to save our constitutional right to privacy, people had to go to the Supreme Court to protect it.
And the private entities, to save their own companies, have approached the Government and they have got this Bill. Doing this is a serious shame on this country. That is why I appeal to the Government again to re-deliberate this whole thing. This was the speech that I prepared. But after coming here and listening to what Shrimati Supriya Sule ji had quoted from the Economic Survey, I feel the whole debate goes to another level. Now that the data is being monetised, you can sell the data. This is the intention of the Government. Now, if this is the intention of the Government, we, from our Party, demand that this Bill needs to be further deliberated. It needs to be sent to the Committee. Proper discussions need to take place at all levels. All stakeholders need to be brought in. We need to give the confidence to the citizens of India, not to any private company in this country. That is what the Central Government should make sure.
If you give me thirty seconds more, I will make one thing clear. Members from YSR Congress Party, while giving their speeches, made baseless allegations on the Telugu Desam Party. I would request you to expunge them. This is a data which was there in public domain. …(Interruptions) I would not have raised this had they not raised it. …(Interruptions) It is my right. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Shri Naidu, we will go through the records and then a decision will be taken.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU : I request you to delete it from the records. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: It will be done only after going through the records.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU: I would not have mentioned it had they not mentioned it. …(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: We will go through the records. I do not want this slanging match to go on.
SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU: They are making baseless allegations.
श्री रमेश बिधूड़ी (दक्षिण दिल्ली): मैडम, आपने मुझे Adhar and others laws amendment bill पर बोलने का मौका दिया है । Aadhar means targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services. बहुत बातें बोल रहे हैं । कोई विदेश पढ़ कर आया है, कोई पढ़े-लिखे बाप का पेटा है, लेकिन लोगों को गुमराह करने का, कितने तरीके से ये लोग लोगों को गुमराह करना चाहते हैं । ये सामने बैठने वाले लोग आधार को यूनीक के नाम से लाए थे । जब लाए थे, तब कोई लॉ नहीं था । अपनी चहेती कंपनियों को ठेके देकर, ठाठ के साथ में जब मर्जी बनाते रहेंगे, पैसे ले कर बनाते रहेंगे, बंग्लादेशियों के बनाते रहेंगे, रोहिंग्या के बनाते रहेंगे, इनकी वोट बढ़ाते रहेंगे । ये लोग इस मानसिकता को ले कर आए थे । जब हमारी सरकार और माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी इस आधार को लाए तो बड़ा शोर मचाया कि इसको तो हम ले कर आ रहे थे । लेकिन इसको सन् 2016 में कानून बनाने के बाद जब ले कर आए थे, तो उसके बाद एक कमेटी बनी थी । 27 जुलाई, 2018 को बी.एन. कृष्णा कमेटी बनी थी । It is for free and fair digital economy protecting privacy and for empowering Indians. The Committee has recommended certain amendments to Aadhar Act in its Report. उसमें माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा था । जो अमेंडमेंट आया है, मुझे लगता है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट की केवल एक बात को ले कर आया है । The Supreme Court decided on an important issue. Privacy is a fundamental right under article 21. आर्टिकल 21 कहता है कि हर व्यक्ति का फंडामेंटल राइट है कि उसकी प्राइवेसी सीक्रेट रहे और वह पब्लिसाइज़ न हो । जब यह आधार कार्ड बना था, बनने के बाद, आज सवा सौ करोड़ लोगों के, एक सौ बीस करोड़ लोगों के आधार कार्ड बन गए हैं । दस हज़ार करोड़ रुपये इसके, कंपनी के अनुसार बनाने में लगे थे । एक ही साल के अंदर, चार साल के टैन्योर में 1.4 लाख करोड़ रुपये सरकार का बचा है, जो गरीबों को सब्सिडी जाती थी । वह सब्सिडी अब गरीब के पास जाती है । जो राजीव जी कहते थे कि हम एक रुपया भेजते हैं और 15 पैसे पहुंचते हैं । …(व्यवधान) बाकी 85 पैसे खा जाते हैं । कई जेल के चक्कर लगा आए हैं, कई हाऊस में बैठे रहते हैं । वे इसी कारण से चक्कर लगा-लगा कर आए हैं । इसी प्रकार की मैंटेलिटी के कारण से ही । इस बिल के कारण से validity of Aadhar Act was upheld. जहां तक वैलिडिटी की बात करते हैं, 18 साल का बच्चा होगा, इससे पहले इस बिल में प्रावधान था कि उसके माता-पिता उसका आधार कार्ड बनाएंगे, लेकिन जैसे ही वह 18 वर्ष का हो जाएगा, उसको राइट मिलेगा, वह अपना कैंसल भी करा सकता है, अपनी मर्जी से भी करा सकता है, वह कह सकता है कि मैं इस आधार को नहीं रख सकता हॅूं । इस आधार के अमेंडमेंट करने के बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इसमें ओर बदलाव की बात कही थी, उसी बदलाव को सरकार ले कर आ रही है । इसके जो सेलिएंट फीचर्स हैं – The Unique Authority is toothless. अगर वह यूनीक अथॉरिटी है और उसके डेटाज़ को कोई लीक कर दे या ब्लैकमेल कर के जिसे पहले एक सांसद बोल रहे थे । वे भी कहीं फॉरेन रिटर्न थे । सुबह बोल रहे थे, मैं सुन रहा था । वे भी कह रहे थे कि सरपंच के पास कार्ड जाएगा, उसका डाटा लीक हो जाएगा । उनको यह मालूम नहीं है कि आज कल अगर टेलीफोन सिम भी इश्यु होती है तो वह भी थंब इंप्रेशन के बाद इश्यु की जाती है । अब आधार कार्ड वैसे ही किसी भी बात को ले कर इश्यु नहीं हो जाएगा । अब तो मोबाइल की सिम भी नहीं मिलती है । वह पहले चलते थे, जो आतंकवादियों को बातें कर के शरण देते थे और यहां पर वोट बढ़ाने का काम करते थे । भारत तेरे टुकड़े होंगे, उनके साथ जाकर खड़े हो जाएँगे और ये लोग राष्ट्र भक्ति की बात करते हैं, यह बात मेरी समझ से बाहर है ।
मैडम,आधार के अंदर उसको दो नम्बर इश्यू किए जाएँगे । ऑनरेबल मिनिस्टर साहब बैठे हैं, वह मुझसे ज़्यादा बैटर जानते हैं । एक नम्बर वह होगा, जो कंसर्न्ड जिस भी डिपार्टमेंट के अंदर हम वह कार्ड देंगे, तो केवल उसी के डेटा उसको दिए जाएँगे । बाकी सीक्रेट एक नम्बर होगा, जो उस आधार कार्ड वाले के पास होगा और कम्पनी के पास होगा । बाकी और जो उसकी इनफॉर्मेशन है, वह उसके पास इस बिल के माध्यम से नहीं जा पाएँगी । जहाँ तक आधार के उपयोग करने की बात कर रहे हैं, जैसा मैंने अपनी पहली बात में बताया, उसी के अनुसार इस बिल के अंदर जैसा मैंने पहले कहा था कि वर्ष 2009 में यह यूनीक कार्ड के नाम से बनाना शुरू हुआ था, करप्शन रोकने के लिए माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी वर्ष 2016 में बाउंड करने के बाद कि जो आधार कार्ड बनेंगे, वह एक समय-सीमा के दायरे में बनकर लोगों को मिलेंगे । एक सौ 30 करोड़ की आबादी में 122 करोड़ लोगों के आधार कार्ड इस सरकार के माध्यम से बन कर तैयार हुए हैं । दो बड़े-बड़े मेम्बर ऑफ पार्लियामेंट भी इसी प्रकार की बात कर रहे थे कि this is like a Halala Act, अब क्योंकि उन लोगों को लग रहा है कि अब तीन तलाक आने वाला है तो …* का मज़ा जाने वाला है । जो … * का मज़ा होता था, वह जाने वाला है । इसलिए उनको हर जगह तीन तलाक पर वही नज़र आएगा । केवल विरोध करने के लिए विरोध नहीं करना है । मेक इन इंडिया, न्यू इंडिया के दायरे में हमें आगे बढ़ना होगा । ऑनरेबल सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस बिल के अंदर जो भी अमेंडमेंट करने की बात कही थी, केवल आर्टिकल 21 में हर व्यक्ति का फंडामेंटल राइट है, उसकी सीक्रेसी उसके पास होनी चाहिए । उसकी विशेष रूप से व्यवस्था इस बिल में की गई है । इसलिए मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूँ । आपने मुझे बोलने का मौका दिया, आपका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): I thank you, Madam, for giving me this opportunity. Though my name was listed as the Mover of the Motion, unfortunately, I couldn’t be present. So, kindly I may be given some bonus time.
Madam, Chairperson, I rise to oppose both the Ordinance as well as the Bill because it basically violates the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country. Regarding the Ordinance, I need not reiterate that there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances prevailing for the promulgation of this Ordinance on 2nd March, 2019. Let the Hon. Minister explain to the House what is the exigency/emergency/urgency in promulgating an Ordinance which is violating the fundamental right – right to life and right to livelihood of the citizens of the country.
Regarding the Bill, it is well established by Mr. Owaisi, Supriya Sule Ji and almost all the learned Hon. Members. I fully support the arguments advanced by my learned friends in this House.
Madam, Chairperson, you may be well aware about Article 21 of the Constitution. No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. What is the procedure established by law? The Hon. Law Minister is well aware of all these facts. In A.K. Gopalan vs. The State of Madras case, the Hon. Supreme Court has elaborately discussed regarding the procedure established by law.
Finally, they have come to the conclusion that procedure established by law in the Constitution of India in Article 21 is equivalent to that of the due process of law in the American Constitution. So, the due process of law means that the right of a person can be curtailed or restricted only on certain grounds. Those grounds should be fair, just, equitable and it should comply the principles of natural justice. This is the accepted/adopted dictum of judgement. It is adopted and accepted throughout the country.
If that be the case, kindly examine the Supreme Court judgement dated 26th September, 2018. Due to paucity of time, I am not going to read the judgement. On two grounds, the validity of the Aadhaar Act has been adopted or approved. The Constitutional validity of Aadhaar Act, 2016 was accepted by the Hon. Supreme Court on two grounds. One is, obtaining the consent of the guardian or father of the children who are being enrolled in the Aadhaar list and the second is, which is very important, providing for informed consent for authentication and Madam, I would like to reiterate – limiting the authentication only to purposes permitted by law. The use of Aadhaar data can only be limited to the purposes permitted by law.
Madam, Chairperson, I would like to seek a clarification from the Hon. Minister.
What does ‘all purposes permitted by law’ mean? It means ‘permitted by law’ dictum in the Supreme Court judgement as well as the procedure established by law is equivalent to that of the due process of law, which is almost similar. Therefore, the law, which is being brought before the House should comply with the principles of natural justice. It should be fair, reasonable, just and equitable.
The main question to be considered by this august House is whether the law or the Bill that is being introduced or being taken for consideration is complying with the principles that have been elucidated in the A. K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras. According to me, it is not. Hence, it is unconstitutional and is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution -- the right to life and personal liberty is curtailed without any reasonable restriction because right of privacy is a fundamental right that comes within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, I would like to say that this is absolutely unconstitutional. It is not going to hold good in the court of law. It will be struck down in the court of law. So, I would like to urge upon the hon. Minister to please send this Bill to the Standing Committee or Select Committee whichever the Government may like.
I will mention six points and conclude my submission. It is not only regarding Article 21, but with regard to the contents of the Bill also I oppose on the following grounds. Firstly, the Ordinance violates the Supreme Court judgement in the sense that it is restricting the use of Aadhaar only for such schemes that have the colour of subsidy, benefit and services, which are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India. The judgement explicitly prohibits the use of Aadhaar by private parties by declaring Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act unconstitutional. The court has already struck down Section 57, and the Government further comes with a legislation so as to give right to the private or corporate companies, especially, the telecom service providers like Jio or some other companies who will be getting the liberty to have the data of the persons of this country, which will be misused. Therefore, this is against the spirit and soul of the judgement.
By amendment of Section 4 of the Aadhaar Act and incorporating a Clause 7 you are making authentication mandatory. Similarly, amendment to Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act -- by virtue of incorporating Clause 24 and inserting a new Section 11A in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act --are also against the spirit of the Supreme Court judgement. Both amendments allow Aadhaar-based authentication and off-line verification.
Secondly, the Ordinance allows private entities to hold Aadhaar data in disregard to the Supreme Court judgement. As per the Supreme Court judgement, all private entities are required to delete Aadhaar authentication logs, which they are having. Such specific direction is also there in the judgement that all the private companies have to delete the Aadhaar data, but unfortunately, you are giving further permission to the private entities so as to have the Aadhaar logs.
Thirdly, privacy and security concerns related to Aadhaar remains unaddressed. Madam, I will conclude within 2-3 minutes.
Fourthly, the Ordinance re-opens the door for commercial exploitation by private companies. Though the Aadhaar number is always declared as a voluntary ID, but in practice, it has become a pre-condition for any service and thereby it has become mandatory. Clause 5 of the Bill speaks about the various forms of voluntary Aadhaar authentication including off-line verification. Nothing in this Bill prevents the private entities from doing authentication. Use of Aadhaar by private entities is not permitted as per the Supreme Court judgement. Allowing private parties to have access to database is violation of citizens’ right of privacy and is unconstitutional.
Fifthly, the Ordinance introduces off-line verification, but fails to specify how it will be done. An hon. Member from the TMC has also spoken regarding the Bill. If you examine the Bill, it is mentioned ‘as may be prescribed’ or ‘as may be by the regulation’ or ‘as may be notified’, but the delegated legislation is absolutely with the Government. We do not know what is going to happen.
Sixthly, the Bill gives greater power to Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with lesser accountability. Can the UIDAI be impartial in discharging their duties? As Mr. Owaisi has rightly said that the present Chief Executive Officer of UIDAI is the Revenue Secretary as well as the Chairman of the GST Network.
My last point is that the Bill disregards the Supreme Court striking down the disclosure of information exception. What has the Supreme Court said about it? The Supreme Court has said that it should be a higher official than the Joint Secretary for the judicial review.
17.00 hrs But hon. Minister, judicial review is missing here. The Supreme Court has directed them to have judicial review but here it is missing. Madam, kindly allow me to complete, otherwise, it would be incomplete.
Madam, the Sri Krishna Committee recommendation is very specific. The Government has to come up with a data protection law. Instead of coming up with a data protection law, it has come up with this Bill. It is unfair and unconstitutional. Hence, I oppose this Bill. Thank you very much, Madam.
श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल(नागौर): सभापति महोदया, आपने मुझे आधार (संशोधन) बिल पर बोलने का मौका दिया, इसके लिए आपको धन्यवाद । मेरे से पूर्व माननीय सांसदों ने अपने-अपने विचार व्यक्त किए हैं । सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह कहते हुए आधार कार्ड की अनिवार्यता पर रोक लगाई कि नया कानून बनाया जाए । इससे आम आदमी की प्राइवेसी, सीक्रेसी बनी रहनी चाहिए । मैं मोदी जी की सरकार को धन्यवाद दूंगा कि वे ‘न्यू इंडिया, डिजिटल इंडिया’ लेकर आए । वर्ष 2014 से 2019 तक जितने भी कानून बने और पिछले कई दिनों से जो बिल्स पारित हो रहे हैं, निश्चित रूप से ये बिल्स आम आदमी, गरीब आदमी से जुड़े हुए बिल हैं । इस आधार बिल से भ्रष्टाचार पर बहुत बड़ा अंकुश लगेगा । आम आदमी, गरीब आदमी तक जो पैसा पहुंचता है, वह सीधा उनके खातों के अन्दर पहुंचेगा । ‘प्रधान मंत्री – किसान सम्मान निधि’ का जो पैसा है, उससे करोड़ों किसानों को फायदा होगा । वह भी गांव के अंतिम छोर पर बैठे व्यक्ति को मिलेगा ।
हमारे विपक्ष के कई साथियों ने अपनी सबसे बड़ी पीड़ा दर्शाई । अपना वोट बैंक बढ़ने की खातिर कई लोगों को इससे तकलीफ भी होगी, पर यह सही है कि आधार से एक पहचान होगी । आपराधिक आंकड़े जुटाने में भी बहुत बड़ा फायदा इस आधार कार्ड से मिलेगा । इसकी अनिवार्यता पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने जो रोक लगाई, इससे आम जनों को बहुत बड़ा नुकसान हुआ । प्रत्येक गरीब को सरकारी योजनाओं का लाभ मिलना बंद हो गया था । मैं इस बिल के लिए सरकार को धन्यवाद दूंगा । पहले इस पर वर्ष 2018 में रोक लगी । वर्ष 2009 में यूपीए सरकार ने यूनिक कार्ड के नाम से जब इसकी शुरुआत की थी, तब अपनी चहेती कम्पनियों को ठेके दे दिए थे । उसमें भी भ्रष्टाचार का बड़ा बोलबाला था । वर्ष 2016 में भारतीय जनता पार्टी और एनडीए की सरकार ने आधार की अनिवार्यता का कानून बनाया । अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्देश के बाद जो कानून बना, इसमें दो नम्बर्स आधार कार्ड में देंगे, जिससे किसी व्यक्ति की प्राइवेसी, सीक्रेसी न जाए और उसका काम भी चलता रहे ।
17.02 hrs (Shri A. Raja in the Chair) सभापति महोदय, विश्व बैंक ने भारत की इस योजना की तारीफ की है । इसने लाखों गरीब लोगों को एक आधिकारिक पहचान देकर सरकारी सेवाओं तक उनकी पहुंच बढ़ाई है । यह देश के लिए गर्व की बात है कि हमारी बनाई योजना पर आज पूरा विश्व चलने को तैयार है । आधार श्रेष्ठ अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय मानकों के अनुरूप है और इसके डेटा की अतिरिक्त सुरक्षा के लिए बायोमेट्रिक लॉकिंग सिस्टम की व्यवस्था की गयी । इससे किसी भी तरह की सीक्रेसी के आउट होने का जरा-सा भी चांस नहीं है ।
सभापति महोदय, भारत सरकार ने कई सरकारी और गैर सरकारी कामों में आधार संख्या को अनिवार्य बना दिया । अब बैंक खाता खोलने, रसोई गैस सब्सिडी, पेन्शन, पासपोर्ट सहित कई सेवाओं के लिए आधार होना जरूरी है । ऐसे में यह सहज ही समझा जा सकता है कि यह कितना महत्वपूर्ण है ।
सभापति महोदय, मैं इस बिल का समर्थन कर रहा हूं । आधार से फायदा हुआ है । 7.3 लाख करोड़ रुपये की सब्सिडी सीधे गरीबों के खातों में गयी । भारत सरकार के 1.4 लाख करोड़ रुपये बचे ।
महोदय, इसमें प्राइवेसी है । यह संविधान के अनुरूप है । कई माननीय सदस्यों ने संविधान की बात की है तो संविधान के आर्टिकल-21 के अनुसार यह कानून बनाया गया है कि संविधान के आर्टिकल-21 का पालन हो ।
प्रत्येक व्यक्ति को ऐसा नहीं लगे कि उसकी प्राइवेसी आउट हो रही है, इसलिए इस कानून को लाया गया । इसके अंदर एक और चीज की गई कि अगर किसी की संपत्ति का डेटा अगर कोई कंपनी लीक करेगी तो इसके लिए एक करोड़ रुपये का जुर्माना रखा गया है । मैं माननीन मंत्री जी को धन्यवाद दूंगा कि उन्होंने इस कानून को बनाने के लिए बहुत मेहनत की है, बड़े-बड़े विशेषज्ञों से राय ली है । भारतीय जनता पार्टी और एनडीए के जो हमारे अनुभवी सांसद हैं, इसमें हमारे पी.पी.चौधरी साहब भी हैं, जो सुप्रीम कोर्ट के एडवोकेट हैं, उनकी भी राय ली गई । इसमें जन हित की जो आवश्यकता थी, इससे भ्रष्टाचार पर रोक लगेगी और माननीय मोदी जी ने न्यू इंडिया तथा डिजिटल इंडिया का जो सपना देखा हैं, अब इस देश के अंदर यह तय हो गया है कि दिल्ली 15-20 सालों तक सुरक्षित हो गई है । यहां तो अब आप सोचिए ही मत, आप स्टेट में अपना काम देखिए । जैसा ओवैसी साहब बोल रहे थे कि स्टेट में जरूर कोई न कोई मामला आपका बैठ सकता है । यहां का मामला ऐसा है कि आपके राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष भी छोड़कर भाग गए । हालत इतनी खराब हो गई है कि इनके कप्तान ही कप्तानी छोड़कर चले गए । जब वह कप्तानी ही छोड़कर चले गए तो फुटबॉल का मैच एक-तरफा हो गया, इसलिए अब हम अकेले ही फुटबॉल खेल रहे हैं । मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करता हूं । …(व्यवधान)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude. There are other hon. Members to speak.
श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल : सभापति महोदय, अब मैं ज्यादा टाइम नहीं लूंगा । मैं सिर्फ एक मिनट का समय लूंगा । मैं यही कह रहा हूं कि मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करता हूं । मैं माननीय मंत्री जी को धन्यवाद दूंगा कि इन्होंने कड़ी मेहनत करके व्यापक सोच के आधार पर कि पूरे देश में भ्रष्टाचार को कैसे रोके, प्राइवेसी भी लीक न हो, निश्चित रूप से इसका फायदा आने वाले पांच सालों में देश देखेगा । जो कांग्रेस आज 50 पर आई है, अगली बार वह उस कोने में 12-13 पर सिमट जाएगी ।…(व्यवधान) इस आधार बिल से बहुत बड़ा फायदा इस देश की जनता को होगा ।…(व्यवधान)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Nothing will go on record.
… (Interruptions)…* * DR. THOL THIRUMAAVALAVAN (CHIDAMBARAM) : Hon. Chairman Sir, Vanakkam. I strongly oppose the Aadhaar Bill which is against the interests of the people. This Bill is basically unconstitutional. This is against the Aadhaar related judgement of the Hon. Supreme Court. Therefore this Bill is against the interests of the people of this country. This Bill should be either withdrawn or should be referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for complete scrutiny. Hon. Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi led Government has invited criticism for not serving the people of this country rather engaged in serving the interests of the corporate companies. It is a matter of concern that the Bill tries to prove the criticism against the Government to be true. Hon. Members have already spoken about the provisions of the Bill which are against the verdict of Hon. Supreme Court. I do not want to list them again. I want to particularly state that Children shall not be asked to register for Aadhaar mandatorily. Even if they register and when they attain the age of 18 years, if they wish, they can go out of the Aadhaar eco system. This Bill is also amended to support this. The Section 3A provides for this Option. It is clearly evident that there is no correlation between what the Government says and intends to do. Children can enrol themselves with Aadhaar voluntarily and if they attain 18 years of age, if they wish, they can cancel that Aadhaar card. This is how they say. But if you look at the ground reality, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) contacts each and every school authority compulsorily and insisting the students to enrol for Aadhaar. On this particular aspect, the Government contradicts with what it says and what it intends to do. The Government says something and tries to do something else. As the Government is making efforts against the verdict of the Hon. Supreme Court, this will be construed as contempt of court. The Government, which has pledged to uphold the Constitution, should respect the judgements of the Hon. Supreme Court. I wish to remind that the Government is showing disrespect to the judgement of the Hon. Supreme Court. As you say that it is not mandatory and children, if they wish, can cancel their Aadhaar card after attaining the age of 18 years. At the same time, this Government has not mentioned any alternative. If you say that students may not enrol for Aadhaar, in that case, if need be, what other identity card they are supposed to show or what identity they should use? This has not been specified in any part of this Bill. Basically there is no connect between what the Government says and what it intends to do. This Government is contradicting with itself and which in a way is helping the corporate companies. I wish to state that the Government is engaged in giving away the individual rights, individual data and individual privacy of the people to private companies. This Amendment Bill will in not in any way help to protect the individual rights, individual data and individual privacy of the people. Therefore I strongly oppose the Bill. This Bill should be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for complete review. Thank you for this opportunity. Vanakkam.
*SHRI GIRISH BHALCHANDRA BAPAT (PUNE): I would speak in Marathi, First of all, I would like to thank our Hon. Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad ji that he has brought a very good amendment Bill in this House. I was listening to the discussion going on in this House. Few are saying it would breach privacy and some other said it would help corporate and businessmen. I have due respect for the Hon. Court. This Government is committed to do justice to everybody. I am witnessing a new world due to bio-metric and digitalization. This is a revolution never happened before. When I was a minister of PDS department in Maharashtra cabinet, we would provide foodgrains to the poor people. Now farmers are getting loans easily. Poor women are provided with LPG gas connections easily. The poor and needy are getting funds transfer to their accounts easily. It is helping to check corruption as funds get transferred directly to the beneficiaries accounts. Of course, we will stick to the law. But I am more concerned about the poor people who have to sleep famished, the tribal students who have got no school uniforms and those who have no access for medical treatment and medicines. Earlier, crores of public money were siphoned off but now this Aadhaar has curbed this kind of corruption. If there are drawbacks in the Aadhaar, we would definitely try to correct them.
But, I wish to support this bill wholeheartedly because crores of poor and needy people have been benefitted due to Aadhaar. Many people commented baselessly on Aadhaar but I always feel that we should support the common man of this country whose life has been changed just because of Aadhaar. This is the government of Shri Narendra Modi and we are standing firmly with the poor. Those who are talking against Aadhaar never opposed emergency imposed in 1977. But today, in the name of corporates and businessmen, they are opposing it.
We represent the poor, the tribals and the needy students and women of this country. We are going to create a new history through this Aadhaar. We will surely take care of the short comings, if any. But it has to stay. Hon. Ravi Shankar Prasad ji, you have taken a historic decision. I welcome this Bill and support it too. Lastly, I have a request for you.
रवि शंकर जी, बायोमेट्रिक और आधार के ऊपर महाराष्ट्र में जब मिनिस्टर के रूप में काम कर रहा था, उस समय आपने बच्चों के बारे में बोला, लेकिन जो कामगार लोग हैं, जो खेती का काम करते हैं, कारपेंटर का काम करते हैं, बायोमेट्रिक में टेक्निकल प्रॉबल्म आ रही थी । उसे सुलझाने के लिए रिसर्च के माध्यम से ज्यादा से ज्यादा कैसे अच्छा काम हो सकता है, इस पर आप ध्यान दें। आधार के माध्यम से देश के गरीब लोगों को मदद करने का काम नरेन्द्र मोदी जी की सरकार करेगी, उसे समर्थन करने के लिए यह बिल है । मैं इस बिल का सपोर्ट करके अपना भाषण समाप्त करता हूं । जय हिन्द, जय महाराष्ट्र ।
17.15 hrs (Hon. Speaker in the Chair) अध्यक्ष महोदय: माननीय मंत्री, जी आप एक मिनट रुक जाइए ।
DR. SHASHI THAROOR (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM): Sir, under Rule 355, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. The fact is that he has already assured the House during Question Hour that he is going to bring a Data Protection Bill. Since, this Aadhaar Bill would have to be amended later to be in conformity with the Data Protection Bill, will the Minister explain why he has brought this Bill before that one? That is going to be the underpinning based on the Supreme Court judgement of the entire principle and then this law can follow to be in conformity with the Data Protection Bill.
Thank you, hon. Speaker, Sir.
विधि और न्याय मंत्री; संचार मंत्री तथा इलेक्ट्रोनिकी और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्री (श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद): अध्यक्ष महोदय, काफी समय से बहस चल रही है और कई माननीय विद्वान सदस्यों ने प्रमाणिकता से गंभीर चर्चा में भाग लिया । मैं संसद में कई वर्षों से हूं लेकिन लोक सभा का सदस्य पहली बार बना हूं । कई बड़े-बड़े बिलों को सदन में लाने का मुझे सौभाग्य मिला है । निशिकांत जी आप भी इस पर बोले है ।
अध्यक्ष जी, आज मैं एक बात अवश्य कहूंगा, जब यह सदन अच्छी बहस करने के मूड में आता है तो सदन में बहस की ऊंचाई बहुत ऊंची हो जाती है । मैं पूरे सदन का अभिनन्दन करूंगा कि आज बहुत ही अच्छी बहस हुई है । हमसे बहुत सारे सवाल पूछे गए, क्यों बिल लाए, किसके दबाव में लाए, कौन सा कॉरपोरेट हाउस है? मैं सदन में बड़ी विनम्रता से कहना चाहूंगा कि नरेन्द्र मोदी जी सिर्फ भारत के हित के दबाव में आते हैं और किसी दबाव में नहीं आते हैं । हमें मालूम है कुछ लोग दबाव में काम करते रहे हैं । सम्माननीय दोस्त चौधरी जी ने मुझसे कई सवाल कर दिए, आप हड़बड़ी में क्यों थे, ऑर्डिनेंस क्यों लेकर चले आए? अब मैं आपसे नहीं कहूंगा कि आपकी सरकार कितने आर्डिनेंस लायी ।
श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी : आप ब्यौरा निकालिए ।
श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद: माननीय अध्यक्ष, मैंने आपको डिस्टर्ब कर दिया ।… (व्यवधान) माननीय गृह मंत्री जी ने विस्तार से आपको बताया है इसलिए मैं रिपीट नहीं कर रहा हूं, आप उस बात को छोड़ दीजिए ।
महोदय, आज मैं कुछ फंडामेंटल चीजें बताना चाहता हूं, मुझे लगा कि काफी कुछ क्लेरिफाई होना है । मैं सभी प्रश्नों का विषयवार उत्तर दूंगा, लेकिन सबसे पहले समझना जरूरी है कि आधार क्या है? इससे पहले मैं एक बात कहना चाहता हूं, जो मैंने आरंभ में कहा कि हम लोगों ने कितना सेव किया, 154 स्कीम्स में लगभग 1 लाख 41 हजार करोड़ रुपये सेव किए । 275 स्कीम्स में 7.48 करोड़ रुपये डीबीटी में भेजे और 1 लाख 41 हजार करोड़ रुपये सेव किए । उस समय का और डाटा है, वह डाटा और भी रोचक है । वह डाटा है - हम लोगों ने राशन कार्ड, एलपीजी में 4.23 करोड़ एलपीजी कनैक्शन्स को रिमूव किया, जो फर्जी थे, यह आधार के कारण किया । 2.98 करोड़ राशन कार्ड रिमूव किए, जो फर्जी थे, आधार से पकड़े गए । आप मुझे एक बात बताएं, 1 लाख 41 हजार करोड़ रुपये बचे, वह तो टैक्स पेयर्स का पैसा था, गरीबों का पैसा था । क्या इससे खुशी नहीं होती है? माननीय गिरिराज जी ने मुझे याद कराया, अच्छा किया,मनरेगा पेमेंट में हम सभी जानते हैं कि गांव में सही मजदूरों को पैसा नहीं मिलता था और फर्जी रजिस्टर बनता था । आज उनके एकाउंट में पैसा जा रहा है, उनको खुशी होती है । उनको मालूम है जब देश ईमानदार होता है तो कुछ लोगों को परेशानी होती है । हम चाहते हैं कि वे परेशान हों । माननीय नरेंद्र मोदी जी की सरकार ईमानदारी से काम करेगी । आज आधार ईमानदारी का बहुत बड़ा माध्यम बना है ।
महोदय, मैं आधार के बारे में कुछ और बातें बताना चाहता हूं । आधार क्या है? यह मेरा आधार कार्ड है, मैं चाहूंगा कि आज हाउस इसे मेरी नजरों से समझने की कोशिश करे । इसमें क्या है - मेरी फोटो है, मेरा नाम है, मैं एक मेल हूं, पीछे पटना का स्थायी पता है और मेरे पिताजी का नाम है । इसमें क्या नहीं है – मेरी जाति, मेरा सम्प्रदाय, मेरा धर्म, मेरा ईमान, मेरा मेडिकल रिकॉर्ड, मेरा हैल्थ रिकॉर्ड, लेकिन सिस्टम में हमारा बायोमेट्रिक है । हमारा बायोमेट्रिक क्या है? मेरी आंखों के निशान आइरिस और मेरी उंगुलियों के निशान हैं । आइरिस को कोर बायोमेट्रिक्स कहते हैं । कोई इंसान अपना नाम बदल सकता है लेकिन अपनी आंखों की पुतलियां और अपनी उंगुलियों के निशान नहीं बदल सकता है, यह है कोर बायोमेट्रिक्स ।
यहां प्राइवेसी की बात बहुत की गई । अधीर बाबू, अच्छा करते अगर आप कानून ले आते । अटल जी ने इसकी शुरुआत की थी ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय मंत्री, आप इधर देखकर बात कीजिए ।
श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद: हमने तो स्वयं कांग्रेस का अभिनंदन किया । अच्छा करते अगर कांग्रेस के लोग कहते कि हमने शुरू किया, डॉ. मनमोहन सिंह जी का नाम ले लिया होता कि मनमोहन सिंह जी की सरकार ने किया, लेकिन मनमोहन सिंह जी का नाम शायद कभी नहीं लिया जाता है । यह एक अलग विषय है, इसे छोड़ते हैं ।
महोदय, मैं आधार ओरीजनल एक्ट का सैक्शन 29 पढ़ रहा हूं – No core biometric information collected or created under this Act shall be shared with anyone for any reason, whatsoever. मतलब हमारी पुतलियां और उंगुलियों के निशान सिस्टम में जाते हैं तो इन्क्रिप्ट हो जाते हैं । आज मुझे इस हाउस को बताते हुए आधार का अभिनंदन करना है कि लगभग ढाई करोड़ ऑथेंटिकेशन रोज होते हैं और 123 करोड़ आधार हैं । सब इंडिया की बनी मशीनरी है और बिल्कुल सेफ और सिक्योर है । यह कभी नहीं निकल सकती, कोई बिलियन भी कोशिश करेगा तो भी नहीं निकल सकती । यह सिर्फ दो कारण से निकल सकती है, अगर राष्ट्रीय हित या राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा के हित में करना जरूरी हो तो निकल सकती है । उसके लिए पहले ज्वाइंट सैक्रेट्री को सर्टिफाई करना था और अब सैक्रेट्री को सर्टिफाई करना है । सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्देश है और हम अमेंडमेंट लेकर आए हैं । दूसरी बात है - अगर कोर्ट का कोई आदेश होगा, पहले डिस्ट्रिक्ट जज था, अब उसे हाई कोर्ट करने जा रहे हैं । मैं देश का आईटी मंत्री हूं, संचार मंत्री हूं, कानून मंत्री हूं, अगर मैं भी किसी को निर्देश दूं कि किसी का कोर बायोमेट्रिक्स रिलीज करो तो मेरे खिलाफ भी कार्रवाई हो सकती है और मुझे तीन साल की सजा हो सकती है । हमने यह कानून बनाया है ।
महोदय, लोग बार-बार कह रहे हैं, सुप्रीम कोर्ट की खिलाफत कर रहे हैं, ये पैराग्राफ की खिलाफत कर रहे हैं । माननीय स्पीकर साहब, यह बात मैंने पहले भी कही थी और आज फिर से कहना चाहता हूं कि सदन को अदालत न बनाया जाए ।
देश की जनता ने हमें कानून बनाने का सार्वभौम अधिकार दिया है और हमें कानून बनाने के अधिकार का प्रयोग करना चाहिए । मैं इस सदन को संविधान और कानून के छात्र के रूप में बहुत विनम्रता से बताना चाहूंगा कि इस सदन को यह भी शक्ति है कि हम जजमेंट को अन्डू कर सकते हैं, उनके आधार को बदल सकते हैं, हमको इतना पावर है, यदि सुप्रीम ने यह कहा है तो आप क्यों कर रहे हैं? न्यायालय का हम सम्मान करते हैं । I would urge the hon. Members of this august House not to minimise their power for Heaven’s sake. The people of the country have given them sovereign power to frame laws. That is their right. They have to understand that.
पता नहीं ओवैसी साहब कहां चले गए । मुझे बहुत संदेश दे रहे थे, कुछ तल्खी भी लगी थी। मैं आज उनसे उनकी अनुपस्थिति में बड़ी विनम्रता से कहूंगा कि अपनी तल्खी को तीन तलाक के लिए वेट कीजिट, उस पर बातचीत करेंगे, उसको आने दीजिए । मैं आधार के केस में प्राइवेसी पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट का जजमेंट पढ़ रहा हूं, जिसमें लिखा है-
“The court is also of the opinion that the triple tests laid down in order to judge the reasonableness of the invasion to privacy has been met. The aadhaar scheme is backed by statute, that is, the Aadhar Act. It also serves a legitimate state aim which can be discerned from the introduction of the Act.” उन्होंने कहा कि प्राइवेसी के कानून का यह कोई उल्लंघन नहीं करता है । सर, जो 9 बेंच था, मैं 9 बेंच के जजमेंट की 5-6 लाइन पढ़ना चाहता हूं । I hope Shri Premachandran is listening to me. It says:
“An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold requirement of law: legality, which postulates the existence of a law; need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. the legitimate aim of the state would include for instance protecting national security, preventing an investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits.” The Supreme Court itself had permitted these legitimate state aims for which even privacy could be invaded if it could be justified. Therefore, I would request the very distinguished Members who are quite enlightened to understand this aspect of it.
हमने इस कानून में क्या किया है? मैं बहुत संक्षेप में बताना चाहता हूं । पहली बात यह है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्देश था कि चाइल्ड को यह कहने का अधिकार है कि हम इससे अपने को बाहर रखना चाहते हैं । दूसरी बात, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि आपने जो टेलीग्राफ एक्ट और मनी लाउंड्रिंग एक्ट में काम किया है, उसको एक सर्कुलर और एक रूल से किया था । इसको आप एक्ट से कीजिए । एक बात मैं साफ-साफ बाता देना चाहता हूं, मैं उस प्रावधान को पढूंगा, इस पर बहुत चर्चा हुई है । I would like hon. Members to kindly listen to what I am saying. First, aadhaar is voluntary in the case of telephone; aadhaar is voluntary in the case of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. I will just read that. Secondly, there is a clear injunction that they cannot store any aadhaar data or biometrics. अगर वे करेंगे तो उनके ऊपर एक करोड़ रुपये का फाइन लगेगा । दूसरी बात जो महत्वपूर्ण है कि अगर कोई एन्टिटी है और वह आधार के लिए आग्रह करती है तो उसको परमिट किया जाएगा, लेकिन इसके लिए तीन शर्तें होंगी । First, it must be backed by a law of Parliament. Secondly, it must be for a legitimate State objective, जो मैंने सुप्रीम कोर्ट से पढ़ा । Thirdly, the UIDAI must be satisfied that privacy and security concerns have been addressed. जब तक ये तीनों नहीं होंगे, तब तक वे वालन्टेरी बेसिस पर ही देंगे । तीसरी और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण बात है कि अगर आधार नहीं है तो हम किसी को भी सर्विस डिनाई नहीं करेंगे। This was being debated repeatedly. The present amendment clearly postulates – section 5 (4) of the Telegraph Act and also the amendment to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act – that they shall not deny anyone the benefit of this whole scheme in the absence of aadhaar.
सर, अब मैं बहुत क्विकली एक बार पढ़ देता हूँ, जिससे जो भी आपत्तियां चल रही थीं, वे बिल्कुल क्लीयर हो जाएगी । सर मैं क्लॉज 5 में पढ़ रहा हूँ ।
“Explanation—For the purposes of this section, voluntary use of the Aadhaar number by way of authentication means the use of such Aadhaar number only with the informed consent of the Aadhaar number holder” सर, उसके बाद आगे क्लॉज 6 में साफ लिखा हुआ है:
“Shall not deny any service to him for refusing to or being unable to undergo authentication. ” सर, अब मैं टैलीग्राफ का पैरा भी पढ़ देता हूँ, क्योंकि इसकी चर्चा भी बहुत हुई है ।
“If, for identification of a person, authentication under clause (a) of sub-section (3) is used, neither his core biometric information nor the Aadhaar number of the person shall be stored.” अब मैं क्लॉज 5 पढ़ता हूँ:
“The use of the modes of identification under sub-section 3 shall be a voluntary choice of the person who is sought to be identified and no person shall be denied any service for not having an Aadhaar number.” तो यह टैलीग्राफ में भी है और इसमें भी है तो यह बिल्कुल वॉलेन्ट्री है, कनसेंट से है और आप मुझे डिनाई नहीं करेंगे ।
अब मैं इस सदन के सामने एक सवाल करना चाहता हूँ । प्राइवेसी की बात की जा रही हैं । बड़ी-बड़ी बातें की जा रही हैं, अगर इस देश के करोड़ों लोगों को आधार से खुशी है तो हाउस की क्या समस्या है? मैं बहुत गंभीरता से इस प्रश्न को उठा रहा हूँ । 68 करोड़ लोग सिमकार्ड खरीदने के लिए इसका यूज कर रहे हैं । माननीय सदस्य पटेल जी ने एक सवाल उठाया था कि आप बाकी का क्या करेंगे, तो जैसे ही बिल पास होगा, रेग्यूलेशन से हम पासपोर्ट के अलावा बाकी भी मोड्स को आइडेंटिफाई करेंगे, जैसे राशन कार्ड इत्यादि । लेकिन बिल पास होगा तो करेंगे । मैं फिर सवाल पूछता हूँ कि लोग प्राइवेसी की चिंता कर रहे है । अगर देश के गरीब लोग, जिनको गैस मिल रही है, जिनको मनरेगा का पेमेंट मिल रहा है, जिनको पेंशन मिल रही है, उनको अगर कोई पेरशानी नहीं है, वे अगर आधार से प्रसन्न है कि उनके बैंक अकाउंट में पैसा आ रहा है तो इस सदन के कुछ लोगों को क्यों परेशानी है? मुझे यह समझ में नहीं आता है । यह बात समझना बहुत जरूरी है । मैं आपको बताऊँ कि कॉमन सर्विस सेन्टर स्कीम भी आप ही ने शुरू की थी । यह आई.टी. विभाग में 80 हजार था, मैं इसे लगभग साढे तीन लाख तक ले गया हूं । आज देश के ढ़ाई लाख ग्राम पंचायतों में कॉमन सर्विस सेन्टर्स हैं । यह डिजिटल खिड़की है । वे पेन कार्ड, पासपोर्ट बनाते हैं, टिकट करते हैं और आज कल वे पेंशन भी देते हैं । गांव में आधार के साथ और क्या फायदा हुआ है? पहले मनरेगा की हमारी बहनें और बेटियां अपना पेमेंट लेने के लिए शहर जाया करती थीं, तो एक दिन की छुट्टी लेनी पड़ती थी । अब वे सात दिन काम करती हैं, क्योंकि गांव में ही उनका पेमेंट आधार के साथ हो जाता है । हमारी जो सरकार हाल ही में जीती है, उसके लिए मैं बहुत विनम्रता से बताना चाहूंगा हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी ने कहा था, 2014 में उनका वक्तव्य था कि गरीबों के लिए सरकार है और 2019 की सरकार गरीबों ने बनाई है, क्योंकि इन्होंने जमीन पर बदलाव देखा है । मैं समझता हूँ कि इस बदलाव से कुछ लोगों को परेशानी होती है । वे खुद को सुधारने की कोशिश करें । हम तो यह चाह रहे थे कि आधार को वे ऑन करते, अब कहा गया कि केस पहले हुआ । हमारे उस पक्ष के मित्र मुझे क्षमा करेंगे The case was filed before we came to power in 2014. Why was the case filed in the Supreme Court challenging Aadhaar? The first area of challenge was, Aadhaar is being conducted without any legislative sanction. No law is there. That was the first challenge. और मुझे याद है, जब हम मंत्री बने थे तो हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी ने कहा था कि देखो इसका क्या उपयोग हो । आज अरुण जेटली जी नहीं हैं, अस्वस्थ हैं, वे थे, हम लोग थे, बाकी लोग भी थे । सबसे पहले तय किया गया कि इसका कानून लाना है, तो कानून लाया गया, प्राइवेसी की चिंता की । यह बातें हम लोगों के सामने है तो मैं इस सदन को विनम्रता से आश्वस्त करना चाहूंगा ।
The proposed amendment is strictly in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order It is completely voluntary. The voluntary nature of compliance is based upon the consent of the owner of Aadhaar. The private entities are exempted from taking any biometrics, Aadhaar Number, etc. and if they do, they can go to jail and a penalty of Rs.1 crore can also be imposed subsequently.
Therefore, all these safeguards – whereby they are prohibited from violating the regime – have been in place.
सर, कुछ बड़ी-बड़ी बातें हुई हैं । मनीष जी अभी यहां नहीं हैं ।…(व्यवधान) धन्यवाद । …(व्यवधान) आपने अपनी जगह बदल ली । मैं आपको वहां खोज रहा था । …(व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : माननीय मंत्री जी, आप इधर खोजिए, उधर नहीं ।
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: The second part is the ‘right to be forgotten’. I need to compliment the hon. Member for raising a very interesting issue. But I would like to gently remind him that the right to be forgotten is a concept which flows from the data protection laws. Even in the GDPR, the European Union’s data protection law, there is such a concept. But we need to also acknowledge that the right to be forgotten is a concept which is still evolving. The norms are still to be concretised globally.
Now, as far as data protection law is concerned, I wish to assure this House, as I have said earlier, that the work is in progress. Justice Srikrishna Committee report has come about. The widest consultation had happened in the country for more than two years. After the report came, we had also put it on website. Now, some more inter-ministerial consultation is going on. The work is in progress. But let me share my general view on the data. I am happy that this issue has been raised. Pinaki Ji has raised this issue. We are very clear that India is fully supportive of data sovereignty of India. India’s data sovereignty needs to be respected clearly and categorically.
The second point is this. Let the law come, you will see that. The second point is very important. I am very concerned and keen about it. India - being populated by 1.3 billion people, generating billions of data – must become a centre of data analytic. आज डेटा एनालिसिस और डेटा प्रोसेसिंग एक बहुत बड़ी बात हो सकती है और हमें उस पर विचार करना पड़ेगा, हम कर रहे हैं और करना चाहिए । तीसरी बात और महत्वपूर्ण है कि डेटा अवेलेबल होना चाहिए । मान लीजिए किसी इलाके में कोई बीमारी आती है, उस बीमारी का कारण क्या है, उसका डेटा अवेलेबल होना चाहिए । डेटा एनालाइज होना चाहिए । इन सभी विषयों पर विचार करके निर्णय करना पड़ेगा । As I have said earlier, let me also repeat in this House, there has to be a fine blend.…(Interruptions)
SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SADANAND SULE (BARAMATI): There is no medical information in the Aadhaar.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: That is a separate chapter altogether. Madam, Aadhaar is separate.
What I am simply saying is that data availability, data utility, data innovation, data privacy, all have to be worked together and the law will surely respond to that.
Now, two issues were raised by the hon. Member. You are sitting here. I was looking for you there. The issue raised was about abuse of data by hospitals. …(Interruptions) Take a light banter.
Hon. Speaker, Sir, I wish to tell her that if any hospital denies medical aid or benefit to a patient in the absence of Aadhaar, it is not right and fair. The ecosystem of Aadhaar is very clear. I would urge her that if she has any specific information, make a complaint to the health department concerned there and also bring the matter to my notice. I assure you that we will take appropriate measures.
Lastly, today, Aadhaar is being globally feted.
सर, एक बहुत बड़े अमेरिकन इकोनोमिस्ट हैं – पॉल रोमर, मैं समय की कमी के कारण उनको पढ़ूंगा नहीं । He said: “The Aadhaar platform in India is something to be really followed globally. The way it is saving public money is a matter of great appreciation.” सर, आपकी अनुमति से सदन के साथ एक बात शेयर करना चाहता हूं कि मैं आज से करीब एक वर्ष पहले कॉमनवेल्थ लॉ मिनिस्टर्स कांफ्रेंस में भाग लेने बहामास गया था, वहां कई विषयों में डिजिटाइजेशन का भी एक विषय था । बाकी चर्चा हुई, लेकिन अफ्रीका एवं अन्य देशों के मंत्रियों ने कहा कि हमें आधार के बारे में बताइए । हिन्दुस्तान में आधार से जो गुड गवर्नेंस आया है, उससे हम सीख लेना चाहते हैं ।
मैं इस हाउस से बहुत विनम्रता से आग्रह करूंगा कि ‘आधार’ की चर्चा पूरी दुनिया में हो रही है, भारत की प्रशंसा हो रही है, आप भी कुछ प्रशंसा करना सीखिए । श्रीमान् शशि थरूर जी आपकी ही सरकार ने यह शुरू किया था । उसमें आप भी मंत्री थे । हमारा कहना है कि आलोचना करना आपका अधिकार है, विरोध करना आपका अधिकार है लेकिन कुछ मामले पर शायद इस सदन को खड़ा होना चाहिए । ‘आधार’ एक ऐसी उपलब्धि है, which is bipartisan. Yes, it was conceived during the regime of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Now, why was this Ordinance? यह सवाल अंत में माननीय प्रद्युमन जी ने कही है । हम ऑर्डिनैंस क्यों लाए? अब यह बताएं कि करोड़ों लोगों के पास आधार है । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने केवल बैंक में लिंकेज के लिए कह दिया और बाकी सर्विस के लिए लॉ लाओ तो क्या हम बाकी लोगों को छोड़ दें? क्या गरीब लोगों को छोड़ दें कि तुम यह काम नहीं कर सकते । तुम अपने फोन का सिम नहीं बदल सकते । ऐसी हमारी साधारण जनता, जिनकी संख्या करोड़ों में थी, उनके हित के लिए इमर्जेंसी में इसको ले आएं ।
सर, पिछली लोक सभा में यह यहां से पास हो गया था, लेकिन उस हाउस में जा कर रुक गया । किन कारणों से वह रुक गया, मैं उसकी चर्चा यहां नहीं करूंगा । हमारे मित्र जानते हैं कि किन कारणों से रुका । संविधान का यह प्रावधान है कि अगर एक हाउस के टेन्योर में पास नहीं हुआ तो इसको दोबारा लाना पड़ता है । इसलिए हम यहां पर लाएं हैं । मैं इस सदन में बहुत विनम्रता से कहना चाहूंगा, that it is a wholesome amendment in compliance with the Supreme Court order. It makes Aadhaar voluntary with proper safeguards. I would urge the House कि कृपया करके देश के आम आदमी पर ट्रस्ट करें । देश का आम आदमी समझता है । अगर कोई भी आम आदमी मुझसे शिकायत करे कि मुझे ‘आधार’ के कारण परेशानी हो रही है तो मैं उसकी जरूर चिंता करूंगा । आज तक, मैं पांच साल से आई.टी. मंत्री था। ‘आधार’ मेरे अंतर्गत है । मुझसे एक आम हिन्दुस्तानी आदमी ने शिकायत नहीं की है कि ‘आधार’ से हमको परेशानी है । ‘आधार’ से हमको फायदा हो रहा है । मैं कहूंगा कि आप भी यहां करें । मैं इन कारणों से बहुत विनम्रता से हाउस से अपील करूंगा कि कृपया इस संशोधन को पूरा पास करें । धन्यवाद ।
SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY : Sir, I am entitled to the right of reply. Please give me a little protection.
First of all, I would like to say that you have exhausted all your resources to appropriate the credit of Aadhaar. आपने हमारे सारे बयान सुने हैं । आपको ऐसा लगा कि हम ‘आधार’ से प्रसन्न नहीं हैं । आपने कैसे यह हाउस में कह दिया कि शायद हम लोग खुश नहीं हैं । इसलिए विरोध करते हैं ।…(व्यवधान)
श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद : आप समर्थन कर दीजिए ।…(व्यवधान)
श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी : हम लोगों ने हिन्दुस्तान में सबसे पहले डायरैक्ट बेनिफिट ट्रांसफर्स पायलेट प्रोजैक्ट की हैसियत से शुरू किया था । Aadhaar is the brainchild of the UPA Government. Secondly, earlier you said that we should not reduce Parliament to an Adalat. आप पहले भी कह चुके थे और आज भी इसका जिक्र किया । हमारी अदालत रहेगी । आपने कई विषयों पर अदालत का जिक्र किया । इसका मतलब है कि all legislations are destined to be scrutinized by our judiciary. हम पार्लियामेंट को जरूरत मानते हैं । पार्लियामेंट्री सुप्रीमैसी, हमारे स्वीकार में नहीं होगा॥ हिन्दुस्तान का संविधान पार्लियमेंट्री सुप्रीमैसी को नहीं मानता । आपकी बात से ऐसी बू आ रही है कि आप बार-बार यह कहते हैं कि यह अदालत में न बदल दिया जाए । हम लोगों ने अदालत में नहीं बदला है । आप आधार के बारे में सारी सराहना खुद को लेना चाहते हैं । ऐसा लगता है कि मेरी बिल्ली मुझे म्याऊं कहती है । मैं दो मुद्दे उठाऊंगा । Until a Government notification is issued, authentication can be done only through Aadhaar number and passport. However, if an individual does not have a passport, the only verification method will be through Aadhaar number. Therefore, it may be asked whether this will result in Aadhaar number becoming mandatory for authentication. यह क्वैश्चन आ रहा है कि Whether Aadhar number will become mandatory for authentication or not. नोटीफिकेशन नहीं हुआ है ।
The Bill defines biometric information to include photograph, finger prints and iris scans. Further, it empowers UIDAI authority to specify other biological information that may be collected. Therefore, UIDAI can prescribe other categories of biometric information. The question is whether these types of biometric information which may be collected should be prescribed by Parliament, or whether it should be left to regulation notified by UIDAI.
महोदय, आपको यह फंडामेंटल क्वैश्चन जरूर मानना पड़ेगा । आप बड़ी-बड़ी बातें कह रहे हैं, हम नहीं कहते हैं । हम सभी ‘आधार’ से प्रसन्न हैं । हम सब चाहते हैं कि ‘आधार’ चुस्त हो, दुरुस्त हो, फ्लॉलेस हो और इसमें कोई लूपहोल न रहे, इसलिए हमारे पक्ष की तरफ से आपको बार-बार सचेत किया जा रहा है । हमारे पक्ष की तरफ से आपको वार्निंग के तहत सचेत किया जा रहा है । आप बार-बार स्क्रूटनी के जरिए इसमें सुधार ला रहे हैं । हम पहले भी कह चुके थे कि इतना बड़ा मुद्दा है, इसे आप स्टैंडिंग कमेटी में ले जा सकते हैं । आपने पहले भी कहा, आज भी डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बिल के लिए कहा है, लेकिन डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बिल कब आएगा? कभी आप कहते हैं कि डेटा ऑयल है । प्रधान मंत्री जी स्वयं कह रहे हैं कि डेटा गैस है । ऑयल हो या गैस हो, लेकिन जो भी हो, सबके सामने लाना चाहिए । आप बात नहीं सुनते, इसलिए मैं अपना रेजोलूशन मूव करता हूं ।
SHRI MANISH TEWARI: Hon. Speaker, Sir, I have a specific query. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act. Insofar as it allows the sharing of Aadhaar data with private entities is concerned, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. Now, you have, through an amendment to the Telegraph Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, allowed the sharing of the data on a voluntary basis. My specific question is this. Does the Supreme Court judgement permit sharing of that data even on a voluntary basis with a private entity? Or, are you, in this amendment Bill, going beyond the Supreme Court judgement? That is my specific question to the hon. Minister.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Hon. Speaker, Sir, I will reply in brief. I stated that you started it. On the floor of the House, in course of my reply, I said that your Government concretised it, the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee thought about it. This I will surely say that the people thought that the Narendra Modi Government will better implement it. Therefore, we have come to power. Be very clear about it.
On the second part, I again say that it is voluntary. As to what Shri Manish Tewari ji said, I would request him to go through the judgement once again. The circular under the Telegraph Act and the rules of Money Laundering Act were debated before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said that you cannot do it by a circular or by a rule. It has to be done by a law. Therefore, there is a separate amendment.
Sir, as regards the amendment to clause 4 and 5, I said that there are three injunctions, which are very clear for an entity also. Firstly, it has to be on a voluntary basis. Secondly, it must be for an objective backed by a law of Parliament. Thirdly, otherwise it must be for a clearly stated State objective, which is what the Supreme Court has said, subject to the authority confirming it, the requirement of privacy and security. All these proper safeguards are there in place. For the other provisions, as I said, the Srikrishna Committee has said, the authority should be reinforced and all other things are there.
Sir, I would like urge upon this House देश के लोग करोड़ों की संख्या में ‘आधार’ के साथ चल पड़े हैं । मैं हाउस से भी आग्रह करूंगा कि वे भी साथ चल पड़ें और इस संशोधन को पारित करें ।
डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे (गोड्डा): अध्यक्ष जी, मेरा प्वाइंट ऑफ आर्डर है ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : किस नियम के तहत आपका प्वाइंट ऑफ आर्डर है?
डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे : महोदय, नियम 368 भारत के संविधान के तहत है । अभी इन्होंने कहा कि पार्लियामेंट सुप्रीम नहीं है । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ऐसा नहीं मानता है ।…(व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : माननीय सदस्य, आप आपस में बात मत कीजिए । आप चेयर को संबोधित करें ।
…( व्यवधान)
डॉ निशिकांत दुबे : महोदय, नियम 368 का प्वाइंट-V यह कहता है कि “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provision of this Constitution under this article.”...(Interruptions)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी द्वारा प्रस्तुत सांविधिक संकल्प को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूँ ।
प्रश्न यह है:
“कि यह सभा राष्ट्रपति द्वारा 2 मार्च, 2019 को प्रख्यापित आधार और अन्य विधियाँ (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2019 (2019 का संख्यांक 9) का निरनुमोदन करती है ।” प्रस्ताव अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यह है:
“कि आधार (वित्तीय और अन्य सहायिकियों, प्रसुविधाओं और सेवाओं का लक्ष्यित परिदान) अधिनियम, 2016 का संशोधन करने तथा भारतीय तार अधिनियम, 1885 एवं धन शोधन निवारण अधिनियम, 2002 का और संशोधन करने वाले विधेयक पर विचार किया जाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब सभा विधेयक पर खण्डवार विचार करेगी ।
श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन ।
Clause 2 Amendment of Section 2 SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): I beg to move: “Page 2, line 10,-- after “individual” insert “after ensuring the protection of right to privacy”. (1) Page 2, line 11,-- after “sub-section (4) of that section” insert “,without infringing the right to privacy”. (2) Page 2, line 15,-- after “entities” insert “connected to Aadhaar system and bound to protect the right to privacy”. (3) Page 2, line 26,-- after “such offline modes” insert “,without affecting the right to privacy,”.” (4)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन द्वारा खण्ड 2 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 1 से 4 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूँ ।
प्रस्ताव अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
Amendment made:
Page 2, for lines 6 and 7,--
substitute ‘2. In the long title of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereafter in this Part referred to as the principal Act), after the words “the Consolidated Fund of India”, the words “or the Consolidated Fund of the State” shall be inserted.’. (35) (Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad) माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यह है:
“कि खण्ड 2 यथासंशोधित विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खण्ड 2 यथासंशोधित विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Motion Re: Suspension of Rule 80(i) SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: I beg to move:
“That this House do suspend clause (i) of rule 80 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha in so far as it requires that an amendment shall be within the scope of the Bill and relevant to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates, in its application to the Government amendment No. 36* to the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and that this amendment may be allowed to be moved.” HON. SPEAKER: The question is:
“That this House do suspend clause (i) of rule 80 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha in so far as it requires that an amendment shall be within the scope of the Bill and relevant to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates, in its application to the Government amendment No. 36* to the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and that this amendment may be allowed to be moved.” The motion was adopted.
New Clause 2A Amendment made:
Page 2, after line 7,-
insert “2A. In section 2 of the principal Act, --". (36) (Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad) माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यह है: “कि नया खण्ड 2A विधेयक में जोड़ दिया जाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । नया खण्ड 2A विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । Clause 3 Amendment of Section 3
माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री प्रेमचन्द्रन जी, क्या आप अपना अमेंडमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN: Sir, I am not moving Amendment No. 5 to clause 3.
माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यह है:
“कि खण्ड 3 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खण्ड 3 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 4 Insertion of new section 3A माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री प्रेमचन्द्रन जी, क्या आप अपना अमेंडमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : I beg to move:
“Page 2, line 41,--
for “six months” substitute “one year”. (6) Page 3, line1,-- after “section 7”. insert “or any other provision of this Act”.” (7)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन द्वारा खण्ड 4 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 6 और 7 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूँ ।
प्रस्ताव अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यह है:
“कि खण्ड 4 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खण्ड 4 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 5 Amendment of Section 4 माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्या आप अमेंडमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, in this case, the hon. Minister has read out, – “informed consent”. So, my amendment is that it should be “informed written consent”. It will be safer. Kindly accept that amendment.
I beg to move:
Page 3, line 14,--
for “informed” substitute “written”. (8) Page 3, line15,-- for “authentication” insert “by protecting the right to privacy”. (9) Page 3, line 32,-- after “place” insert “only”. (10)
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sir, if anyone cannot write, that means he cannot give.…(Interruptions) Therefore, we have taken good care of that.…(Interruptions)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन द्वारा खंड 5 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 8 से 10 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन 8 से 10 मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी, क्या आप अमेंडमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI (HYDERABAD): I beg to move:
Page 3, lines 10 and 11,--
Omit “ or in such other form as may be notified, in such manner as may be specified by regulations”. (14) Page 3, line14,--
For “the informed consent” substitute “the free, prior and informed consent”. (15) Page 3, for lines 15 to 32,-- Substitute “(4) The Authority shall not allow any authentication to be performed if it is found that the requesting entity: (a) has been registered or has conducted operations for less than seven years as on the date on which such request is made; or (b) employs or has itself contracted with any personnel who were, or any entity that was, previously penalised or sentenced to imprisonment for more than three years or has paid a fine of more than 5000 rupees to a competent authority under law; or (c) employs or contracts with personnel who have previously been found to conduct themselves in a manner that could result in a breach of privacy of any person; or (d) possesses a record of having dealt with private information of individuals in a manner that is likely to endanger their privacy; or (e) is subject to pending criminal or regulatory action for non-compliance with, or violation of any, law in force; or (f) is subject to complaints with respect to non-compliance with extant standards of data security and privacy. (5) No entity shall be allowed to perform authentication unless – (a) The Authority is satisfied that the requesting entity is compliant with any standards of privacy and security specified under the law; (b) The Authority is satisfied that the requesting entity is permitted to offer authentication services by or under any law for the time being in force; (c) The Authority provides reasons in writing as to why such authentication is being permitted to perform; (d) The Authority issues a notice, at least 14 days prior to the performing of authentication, seeking any objections from the public if any; and (e) The Authority has received an undertaking from the requesting entity, explaining the specific need to require Aadhaar number for authentication and elaborating why no alternative mode of authentication was considered by the requesting entity.
(6) The Central Government shall, by rules, determine whether requesting entity shall be permitted the use of the actual Aadhaar number during authentication or only an alternative virtual identity.
(7) Every requesting entity to whom an authentication request is made under sub-section (3) shall, for the purposes of identification, at the first instance offer to undertake identification through any valid identification document issued by or under any law for the time being in force.
(8) No person shall be denied any service solely for refusing to, or being unable to, under authentication: -
Provided that, for the purposes of this action, “free, prior and informed consent” is obtained only when all material information has been provided in an unambiguous and legible manner.” (16) माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी द्वारा खंड 5 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 14 से 16 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन 14 से 16 मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आप अमेंडमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM): Sir, I am just going in the same direction as the Minister’s assurance that the service is not to be made compulsory by private providers. So, it is very much in the same direction as the Minister’s Statement. But I will move amendment no. 33 and 34 because private service providers getting Aadhaar is unconstitutional. So, just remove the word ‘private’ and say ‘any Government service’, and it is done. Thank you.
I beg to move:
Page 3, lines 31,--
for “any service” substitute “any government service”. (33) Page 3, after line 32, -- insert “Provided that nothing in this section shall provide for mandatory authentication of an Aadhaar number holder for the provision of any private service or service provided by a private entity”. (34)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं डॉ. शशि थरूर द्वारा खंड 5 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 33 और 34 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन 33 और 34 मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है :
‘‘कि खंड 5 विधेयक का अंग बने ।’’ प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 5 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Motion Re: Suspension of Rule 80 (i) SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sir, I beg to move:
“That this House do suspend clause (i) of rule 80 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha in so far as it requires that an amendment shall be within the scope of the Bill and relevant to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates, in its application to the Government amendment No. 37* to the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and that this amendment may be allowed to be moved. ” HON. SPEAKER: The question is:
“That this House do suspend clause (i) of rule 80 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha in so far as it requires that an amendment shall be within the scope of the Bill and relevant to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates, in its application to the Government amendment No. 37* to the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and that this amendment may be allowed to be moved. ” The motion was adopted New Clause 5A Amendment made:
Page 3, after line 32,-
insert ‘5A. In section 7 of the principal Act, after the words “the Consolidated Fund of India”, the words “or the Consolidated Fund of the State” shall be inserted.’. (37) (Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad) माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है :
‘‘कि नया खंड 5ए विधेयक में जोड़ दिया जाए ।’’ प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
नए खंड 5 ए को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया Clause 6 Amendment of Section 8 माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी, क्या आप अमेंडमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं?
श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी : सर, मैं इस अमेंडमेंट को मूव कर रहा हूं, क्योंकि गवर्नमेंट का जो प्रज़ेंट अमेंडमेंट है, that goes against the basic constitutional principle. An informed consent is not given. सर, इस हाउस की बदबख्ती यह रही कि ये लोग प्रॉब्लम शुरू करते हैं और हम उसको खत्म करते हैं ।
मैं प्रस्ताव करता हूं:
पृष्ठ 4, पंक्ति 15 से 28 के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रतिस्थापित किया जाए-
‘‘6. मूल अधिनियम की धारा 8 में, उपधारा (2) में-
(i) खंड (क) में, ‘‘सहमति अभिप्राप्त करेगा’’ शब्दों के पश्चात् ‘‘और बालक के मामले में, व्यस्कता की आयु प्राप्त करने के पश्चात् ही उसकी सहमति अभिप्राप्त करेगा’’ शब्द अंत:स्थापित किए जाएंगे;
(ii) खंड (ख) के पश्चात्, निम्नलिखित परंतुक अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात:
परंतु यह कि अनुरोधकर्ता अस्तित्व वृद्धावस्था के कारण या अन्यथा रोग, क्षति, अक्षमता अथवा नि:शक्तता के कारण अथवा अन्यथा या किन्हीं तकनीकी या अन्य कारणों से अधिप्रमाणन में असफलता के मामले में, व्यक्ति की पहचान के ऐसे वैकल्पिक या व्यवहार्य साधन प्रदान करेगा, जो तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा अवधारित किया जाए’’ (17) माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी द्वारा खंड 6 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 17 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन 17 मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है :
‘‘कि खंड 6 विधेयक का अंग बने ।’’ प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 6 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 7 Insertion of New Section 8A माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्या आप अमेंडमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN: Sir, I am moving amendments No. 11, 12, and 13 in which there are two amendments – “the written consent” as well as “without infringing the right to privacy”.
I beg to move:
Page 4, line 4,--
after “of this section” insert “without infringing the right to privacy”. (11) Page 4, line 6,--
for “the consent” substitute “the written consent”. (12) Page 4, line 11,-- after “verification” insert “without infringing the right to privacy”. (13)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन द्वारा खंड 7 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 11 से 13 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन 11 से 13 मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
18.00 hrs माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यह है कि:
“कि खंड 7 विधेयक का अंग बने” ।
प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 7 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 8 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय सदस्यगण अगर सभा की सहमति हो तो इस विषय की समाप्ति तक सभा की कार्यवाही बढ़ा दी जाए ।
अनेक माननीय सदस्य : जी हाँ, ठीक है ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : सदन का समय विधेयक पास होने तक बढ़ाया जाता है ।
Clause 9 Insertion of new section 23A माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी, क्या आप अमेण्डमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI: Sir, this amendment is very important because unless and until there is a public debate on what the Authority is going to decide, it will be a one-sided decision; this will be against the principle of natural justice. So, I move my amendment.
I beg to move:
Page 4, afterline 30,--
insert “(3) The Authority, prior to issuing directions under sub-section (1) of this section, shall—
1. seek approval for the draft directions from the Central Government in a form prescribed by the Central Government;
2. place the drafts of such directions in the public domain for at least fifteen days prior to their notification; and
3. provide sufficient opportunity to be heard to any person who may be impacted by the direction.”. (18) माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी द्वारा खंड 9 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 18 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी, क्या आप अमेण्डमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY: Sir, my amendment is a small amendment. Regarding intentional disclosure, in the original Act there is no amendment to the penalty set on such disclosure, but still there is a fine of Rs.10,000 only or imprisonment up to three years. So, I move my amendment.
Page 4, afterline 39,--
Insert “(3) Where the Authority fails to discharge its functions under this Act or fails to issue directions at appropriate time, the officers of the Authority responsible for such failure shall be punished with a fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.”. (28) माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी द्वारा खंड 9 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 28 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है कि:
“कि खंड 9 विधेयक का अंग बने” ।
प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 9 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 10 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 11 Amendment of Section 29 माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी, क्या आप अमेण्डमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं? SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY: Sir, I am not moving amendment nos. 29 and 30. माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है कि: “कि खंड 11 विधेयक का अंग बने” । प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । खंड 11 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । खंड 12 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । Clause 13 Insertion of New Chapter VIA माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी, क्या आप अमेण्डमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं? SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI: Sir, I move amendment nos. 19 and 20. I beg to move: Page 6, omit lines 6 to 20,-- (19) Page 7, for lines 5 to 11,-- Substitute “(2) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of forty-five days from the date of the decision or order appealed against:-- Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that a substantial question of law requires its decision.”. (20)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी द्वारा खंड 13 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 19 और 20 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है कि:
“कि खंड 13 विधेयक का अंग बने” ।
प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 13 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 14 और 15 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 16 Subsitution of new section for section 40 माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी, क्या आप अमेण्डमेंट्स मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY: Sir, these amendments urge the Government for substitution of the term from three years to five years and suggesting fifty thousand rupees instead of ten thousand rupees. So, I move my amendment nos. 31 and 32.
I beg to move:
Page 7, line 28,--
for “three years” substitute “five years”. (31) Page 7, line 29,-- for “ten thousand rupees” substitute“fifty thousand rupees”. (32)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी द्वारा खंड 16 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 31 और 32 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है कि:
“कि खंड 16 विधेयक का अंग बने” ।
प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 16 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 17 से 23 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 24 Amendment of Section 4 of Act 13 of 1885 माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी, क्या आप अमेण्डमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं?
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI : Sir, it is very important to control private companies from not misusing and exploiting this data. That is why, I move these amendments.
I beg to move:
Page 8, for lines 41 to 43,--
substitute “(3) Any person who is granted a license under the first proviso to sub-section (1), shall identify any person to whom it provides its services by—“. (21) Page 9, for lines 6 to 15,--
substitute“(d) use of any other modes of identification that are valid by or under any law for the time being in force.
(4) No person who is granted a license under the first proviso to sub-section (1), shall use authentication under clause (a) of sub-section (3), unless he has first attempted identification through modes of identification under clauses (b) to (d) of sub-section (3).
(5) The use of modes of identification under sub-section (3) shall be a voluntary choice and no person shall be denied any service for not having an Aadhaar number.”. (22) Page 9, for lines 19 to 122,--
substitute“(7) The Central Government shall, from time to time, prescribe such rules as may be necessary to further strengthen protections and safeguards under this section.”. (23) माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब मैं श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी द्वारा खंड 24 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 21 से 23 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है कि:
“कि खंड 24 विधेयक का अंग बने” ।
प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 24 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 25 Insertion of new section 11A माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी, क्या आप अमेंडेमेंट मूव कर रहे हैं? SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI : Yes, I am moving my Amendments. I beg to move: “Page 9, lines 35 and 36,-- omit “if the reporting entity is a banking company”. (24) Page 9, lines 40 and 41,-- for “as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf”. substitute “by or under any law for the time being in force”. (25) Page 9, for lines 42 to 46,-- substitute “(2) No reporting entity shall use authentication under clause (a) of sub-section (1) to identify any person to whom it provides its services, unless the reporting entity has, at the first instance, attempted to undertake identification through all other modes of identification under clauses (b) to (d) of sub-section (1).
(3) The use of modes of identification under sub-section (1) shall be a voluntary choice of the person who is sought to be identified and no person shall be denied any service for not having an Aadhaar number.
(4) If, for identification of a person, authentication under clause (a) of sub-section (1) is used, neither his core biometric information nor the Aadhaar number of the person shall be stored.
(5) The Central Government, shall, from time to time, prescribe such rules as may be necessary to further strengthen protections and safeguards under this section.”. (26) Page 10, omitlines 1 to 21.” (27)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी द्वारा खण्ड 25 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 24 से 27 को सभा के समक्ष मतदान के लिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन 24 से 27 मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है:
“कि खण्ड 25 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खण्ड 25 को विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खण्ड 26 से 28 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
खण्ड 1, अधिनियम सूत्र और विधेयक का पूरा नाम विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : माननीय मंत्री जी प्रस्ताव करें कि विधेयक यथा संशोधित पारित किया जाए ।
श्री रवि शंकर प्रसाद: अध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं प्रस्ताव करता हूं:
“कि विधेयक यथा संशोधित पारित किया जाए ।” माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत हुआ:
“कि विधेयक यथा संशोधित पारित किया जाए ।” SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Hon. Speaker Sir, I am coming to the third reading of the Bill. It has its impact and consequences while the Bill is passed. So, I am not taking much time. The impact is very massive. So, I would like to seek an assurance from the hon. Minister, whether the Minister will bring the Data Protection Bill at the earliest so as to protect the interest of the people, so as to protect Right to Privacy.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: The interests of the people of India are very much protected by the Aadhaar Act, which is already working very well. People are very happy and as regards the data protection, I have already said that the work is in progress and surely we will come up.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है :
“कि विधेयक यथा संशोधित पारित किया जाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: सदन की कार्यवाही कल शुक्रवार, दिनांक 05 जुलाई, 2019 को सुबह 11 बजे तक के लिए स्थगित की जाती है ।
18.08 hrs The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Friday, July 05, 2019/ Aashadha 14, 1941 (Saka) * The sign + marked above the name of a Member indicates that the Question was actually asked on the floor of the House by that Member.
* Not recorded.
* Not recorded.
* Not recorded.
* Not recorded.
* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Odia.
* English translation of speech originally delivered in Bengali.
* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Punjabi.
* Treated as laid on the Table.
* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.
* Not recorded.
* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.
* Not recorded.
* Not recorded.
* Not recorded.
* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.
* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Marathi.
* Vide Amendments list No. 5 circulated on 4.7.2018.
* Vide Amendments list No. 5 circulated on 4.7.2018.