That Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad introduced the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019, in the Lok Sabha on Monday is known to all. Among those who protested the tabling of the Bill was NK Premachandran of the Revolutionary Socialist Party. But what has been overlooked has been the sheer dismissal by Prasad of the concerns raised by Premachandran.

Opposing the Aadhaar Amendments Bill, Premachandran said that it violated the Supreme Court judgement of April 26, 2018 (sic) in the Justice KS Puttuswamy vs Union of India case, and allows private entities to hold Aadhaar data whereas the Supreme Court has specifically directed all Aadhaar agencies to delete Aadhaar authentication data. Premachandran added that the Bill violates the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life, the right to livelihood and the right against discrimination.

Further, Premachandran reminded the House that the government intends to amend three laws – the Aadhaar Act, 2016; the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Clause 5 of the Aadhaar Amendments Bill, which proposes to amend Section 4 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, says that mandatory authentication of an Aadhaar number holder for the provision of any service shall take place if such authentication is required by a law made by Parliament – which goes against the Supreme Court ruling that possession of Aadhaar number or Aadhaar authentication cannot be made mandatory for available any service or welfare benefit.

Premachandran also pointed that Clause 24 of the Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, allows licensed telecom service providers to conduct Aadhaar-based authentication or offline verification and the Bill is very specific. “As rightly mentioned in Part II, the Bill allows the private entities to hold Aadhaar data, which the Supreme Court has opposed. The private entities have no authority to hold Aadhaar data for their own use. That is a specific direction which has been given by the Supreme Court. So, Clause 24 of the Bill is also against the spirit of the Constitution,” elaborated Premachandran.