Why Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance rejected the UID Bill

New Delhi: The much hyped Unique Identification (UID) project led by Nandan Nilekani has run into trouble after the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance rejecting the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its present form.

The committee headed by Yashwant Sinha pointed out several anomalies in the existing bill and urged the government to "reconsider and review the UID scheme as also the proposals contained in the Bill in all its ramifications and bring forth a fresh legislation before Parliament." The committee also suggested that the data already collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) could be transferred to the National Population Register.

The committee was of the stand that when the legislative process was already underway to shape the bill, the executive action of going ahead with its implementation was "unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives"

The provision of illegal immigrants being entitled for an Aadhaar number also met with strong objections. The committee could not also comprehend the rationale of expanding the scheme to persons who are not citizens.

Members were of the opinion that the UID scheme was conceptualised with "no clarity of purpose and leaving many things to be sorted out during the course of its implementation; and is being implemented in a directionless way with a lot of confusion."

Many existing laws including Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, would need to be amended for the UID to achieve some of its goals. This process would need to be examined in detail by the Parliament.

As other forms of identity documents will continue to be accepted even after issue of aadhaar number renders meaningless the claim that aadhaar number will be used a general proof of identity and proof of address.

The committee raised concerns about privacy, identity theft, misuse, security of data and duplication during the implementation of the UID scheme and also noted the serious difference of opinion within the government. Global examples of rejection of similar schemes were also highlighted.

The Committee strongly disapproved of the hasty manner in which the UID scheme was approved and also raised fears that the inclusion of non-citizens can have far-reaching consequences for national security.