SC does not seem to agree with Aadhaar law being termed a Money Bill

The Supreme Court today did not seem to agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Dipak Misra referred to Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which says that "State or any body corporate or person" can use Aadhaar number "for establishing identity of an individual for any purpose".

"The problem arises with regard to section 57 (of the Aadhaar Act). Section 57 snapped the link with section 7 and the targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.

The bench said allowing "any body corporate or person" to use Aadhaar for establishing identity for any purpose "snaps the link with Consolidated Fund of India", indicating that the Aadhaar legislation cannot be called a Money Bill.

The remarks came when Attorney General K K Venugopal was advancing arguments in response to submissions of lawyers including senior advocate P Chidambaram that Aadhaar, by no standard, could have been certified as a Money Bill by Lok Sabha Speaker as it did not meet the conditions of Article 110 (definition of Money Bill) of the Constitution.

Venugopal referred to the preamble and several provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and said the term "targeted delivery of subsidies" contemplated the expenditure of funds.

"The expenditure has to go into thousands of crores of rupees from the Consolidated Fund of India. This itself brings it (law) into the ambit of Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution," he said.

Responding to bench's observation on allowing even private bodies to use the Aadhaar architecture, Venugopal said even though the law has ancillary provisions, the main object was delivery of subsidies, services and benefits.

"Not a single provision in the Act is unnecessary or unrelated to the main purpose or the pith and substance of the Act which is giving subsidies, services and benefits," the top law officer said.

He said as of now, no such contract with private entities with UIDAI was before the court and when such issues are placed before the bench, then only it can be examined.

However, the bench stuck to its observations on Section 57 and said "there is no distribution of benefits and subsidies under section 57."