Ecostani | Aadhaar-Voter ID link: Why pre-legislative consultation was needed

Many concerns could have been addressed had the government adhered to the 2014 pre-legislative consultation with stakeholders on bills

On Tuesday, Parliament approved the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill 2021, paving the way for the linking of the 12-digit biometric Aadhaar number with voter identity cards, without much debate. In both houses, the government argued that the linking would help weed out bogus voters from the electoral rolls, even as the opposition raised concerns that this could impinge on the privacy of a voter and lead to “mass disenfranchisement.”

Even the Election Commission has maintained a puzzling silence, and not addressed these concerns that have come from both citizens and civil society(File Photo)

On the issue thus far, even the Election Commission has maintained a puzzling silence, and not addressed these concerns that have come from both citizens and civil society. This also comes after recent reports that the three election commissioners had an “informal” meeting with officials of the PMO on electoral reforms and a common electoral roll, which has led to questions of impropriety and constitutional autonomy.

Back in 2014, the Election Commission of India launched a portal to link voter identity cards with Aadhaar and close to 300 million voters in the country, “voluntarily” linked the two identity documents. Speaking at the launch of the portal, the then Chief Election Commissioner V S Sampath had said that the linking would help in the cleaning of electoral rolls, even though the ECI had software which could detect voters registered in more than one assembly constituency. However, with the use of the software leading to claims in some quarters that names may have been wrongly removed, Sampath argued that the Aadhaar linkage could overcome that hurdle. The process was, however, stopped in 2015 when the Supreme Court started examining the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, which was upheld by the apex court in September 2018.

Fundamentally, I am not against the linkage of Aadhaar with voter identity cards, provided it does not lead to arbitrary “mass disenfranchisement”, or a situation where citizens have to run from pillar to post to get themselves enrolled in the electoral rolls. In this regard, the record of the election commission is ensuring smooth digital registration has not always been without blemishes.

To me, the linkage is perhaps the first step towards voter authentication at polling booths, something which Bihar state election commission (which does not come under Election Commission) tried in the recently conducted local body polls.

In Bihar, the state election commission first authenticated the identity of the voter by taking his or her picture and biometric identification. Before allowing the person to vote then, these biometrics were checked with those of other voters of that block, who had already cast their vote. If there was a match, the voter would not be allowed to vote.

But clearly, these were done in a limited area. The verification was for voters within a block which has between eight to ten panchayats, while linking Aadhaar with voter identity cards will remove these limitations.

While the government claims that the linkage will be “voluntary”, there have been several anecdotal instances from across the country where availing services like getting a driver’s license, the registration of a new vehicle or property, or even getting a Covid-19 vaccination on the ground, becomes more difficult in the absence of Aadhaar. Ostensibly, providing Aadhaar for these services is also voluntary.

The voluntary nature of the linkage will be known only when rules under the amended law are notified even though the amendment bill says, “no application for inclusion of name in the electoral roll should be denied and no entries in the electoral roll shall be deleted for inability of an individual to furnish or intimate Aadhaar number.”

The crux will be in the details. It remains to be seen what process is followed if no response to the EC’s request for Aadhaar linking is given, or if one has to explicitly say no on the election commission website to prevent the deletion of a name. If that is true, there may not be many that explicitly sign in just to say no.

Many of these concerns could have been addressed had the government adhered to the 2014 pre-legislative consultation with stakeholders on bills. In 2014, the legislative wing of the law ministry had asked all departments to list proposed bills on its websites to seek the response of the public before the preparation of a final draft of the bill before introduction in Parliament. The policy also said that a summary of responses should also be placed on the website.

Since the inception of the policy, 227 of 301 bills have been introduced without prior consultation, according to data provided by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj. Of the 74 placed in the public domain for comment, at least 40 did not adhere to the mandatory 30-day deadline as per the policy.

In this session, the government has introduced an amendment to the Child Marriages Prohibition Act to increase the age of marriage for girls to 21, an amendment to Biodiversity Conservation Act to exempt Ayush practitioners from profit sharing with forest dwellers and amendments to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and Central Vigilance Commission Act extending the term of CBI and Enforcement Directorate directors without any pre-legislative consultation.

The list of laws passed without these consultations includes the three contentious farm laws that were passed in a din in the monsoon session in 2020 after being promulgated through an ordinance in the middle of the first wave of COVID 19. The enactment led to farmer protests for well over a year on the Delhi borders and the laws were repealed on December 11, 2021, in the winter session of Parliament.

This shows that the government has in the past faced setbacks when it has pushed through bills in a hurried and non-consultative manner and a spirit of discussion helps in proposed legislations being richer in content and broad-based. Perhaps, in this case, too, consultation, both within and outside Parliament, should have been the way forward.

(This writer voluntarily linked his voter identity card with Aadhaar in 2015)