After dramatic scenes in the Rajya Sabha, the Centre on Wednesday secured parliamentary approval for the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Bill.

The elders returned the Bill — which had been introduced as a money Bill — to the Lok Sabha with five suggested amendments, but the Lower House rejected all of them and passed the Bill with a voice vote. Most of the amendments were on the issue of privacy and on making Aadhaar compulsory.

Even if the Rajya Sabha does not consider a money Bill, it is deemed passed within 14 days of its passing in the Lok Sabha. But since Wednesday was the last day of the first round of the Budget Session, the government was keen to push it through in the Rajya Sabha even as the Opposition insisted on a discussion.

The Centre may have prevailed in this round, but the Opposition may take legal recourse on the increased use of money Bills, allegedly to circumvent the Rajya Sabha. Senior members said that such a step by the Rajya Sabha was a rarity. “It is a warning to the Centre. The Rajya Sabha has not returned a money Bill with amendments in recent history, though it has happened on a couple of occasions in the past. The attitude of the Centre too made us vote against the Bill,” veteran MP and former Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Rahman Khan said.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s efforts to convince the Opposition did not succeed in the Rajya Sabha as the five amendments proposed by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh were accepted and the Bill was returned to the Lok Sabha. Jaitley argued that there were a number of differences between the UPA’s and the NDA’s Aadhaar Bills. “If subsidies are given to un-quantified and unidentified sections, non-merit people will get the subsidy. The Centre and the States assist people some way or the other by way of subsidy. You are entitled to take UID if you want the benefit of subsidy,” Jaitley said.

Ramesh questioned Jaitley’s stand that the Congress has no moral right to question the use of money Bills and said the Finance Minister misled the House with two examples from the past which are factually incorrect.

Related Topics