Note: not an exact, word-for-word translation or transcription.

Some phrases and quips may

have been missed, but substantively, this is what @rsprasad said in parliament today

RS Prasad

I want to make some general comments first. One thing was said again and again, that Former
PM Rajiv Gandhi once said that "I send Rs 100 from Delhi, and people get Rs 15. There is a
pain behind this. Do we want to understand the pain or not? Should there be an answer to this
pain or not? A school has a teacher and kids, and when we send money, we find that there are
seventy students, but the scholarship is being given for 100. There are 10 teachers, but the
salary being paid is for 50. Does this happen or not? This happens, and it used to happen. A girl
who hasn't been born has been widowed, and is getting the pension for a widow. Isn't this
happening? Now that we're having a open discussion on Aadhaar, there is a need to discuss
openly. Others spoke about the pain. I just went to Mumbai. Maharashtra govt pays for the
scholarship of tribal children: for their food, clothes, school, playing. A survey was conducted in
two villages and found that there were irregularities. They asked children to get on Aadhaar,a nd
found that in the number of students reduced by 30-40%. Asked to count twice more, they found
it was the same decline. When teachers were asked to get on Aadhaar, their numbers dropped
by 20%. Now tell me, if this money which is going to fictitious people, belongs to us, poor people
and taxpayers. Should it be going? These are big questions for which we need answers. People
are talking about DBT. Is it not true that gas subsidy was being misused, in Delhi, Calcutta,
Hyderabad or Mumbai. A small restaurant has 20 gas connections was found that 15 of the
connections were on subsidy, and earnings lakhs of money each month. This was a lingering
problem in our country where public money was sought to be used for extraneous, fictitious and
corrupt purposes. It is a hard reality. Jairam Ramesh was saying that people aren't getting
MNREGA. I don't want to name the village and trouble its people. I was told that when
MNREGA money was being given, the mukhiya (chieftain) would cut 50% money. Second, that
in our village everyone is well off, but everyone had a setting with the mukhiya, and everyone
was covered by MNREGA. If you check, you'll find hundreds of villages like this. Let us not run
away from reality. I'd like to compliment Jairam Ramesh that your government thought of
Aadhaar. You quoted a lot of our comments, and one feels like quoting what the (then) PM of
India had said. "Our government wants to use new technology in a big way to curb dishonest
and bring transparency in governance. Aadhaar is an important step in this direction. Dr
Manmohan Singh (said this). We can debate about dishonesty, but the idea as to why Aadhaar
was brought was eloquent spoken by him. The second comment: "It is a politically revolutionary
step. It was a promise we made in the 2009 manifesto" as said by Jairam Ramesh. As I heard
Jairam Ramesh speak, I was wonderstruck: is he trying to paint Aadhaar as a ghost or a curse,
or the biggest tragedy that happened to the country? Sorry, we can change our position. Let me
acknowledge here, honestly, that once we came to power, I was the Law and IT Minister, and
I'm very proud of my Prime Minister Narendra Modi. How can we deny that he said that? His
direction to all of us was: understand Aadhaar properly. Understand it in depth. How it can be
used to make the country stronger, understand that. What needs to be done legally, understand
that. For the country, we have to use it. See when a leader is elected as the PM of India with a
massive mandate, he has got a statesman like vision, that regardless of what position we've
taken, we have to refine, technologically reinforce,and make it the great instrument of change.
That's why we came with the Aadhaar Act. Why I was constrained to make this observation:
some of my friends from the Congress Party were repeatedly trying to paint Aadhaar as the
biggest tragedy that has happened to the country. Sorry don't do that. You have created it. We
compliment you. Today when I say this, I want to compliment Nandan Nilekani. I want to
compliment Ram Sewak Sharma, the CEO of Aadhaar, and the present CEO Ajay Bhushan
Pandey, who have done a great job against all the opposition against Aadhaar. We need to
respect their dedication for the country. What they've done, they've done for the country, not for
themselves. We might have our differences.

Now it's being said that we're violating the orders of the Supreme Court. I'm explaining this as
both the IT Minister and the Law Minister of India, and as a member of Parliament having a little
knowledge of law. When the Supreme Court passed the two interim orders, the date of the
orders is, Hon'ble Chairman, 11.08.2015 and 15.10.2015, permitting a set of subsidies linked to
Aadhaar. There was no Aadhaar law then. Let the house know and let the nation know through
the house, that the biggest argument at that time was, the without any statutory instrument, you
are taking biometrics of crores of period. By an executive order you cannot have so many
biometrics. It needs a statutory enactment. That was the first argument. The second argument
was the right to privacy. Because it is an executive order, there is no mechanism available.
Other arguments are there. Day in and day out, in both the houses of parliament, I'm be ingrate
being asked: why are you ceding everything to the judiciary? We are the law making authority.
We are the sovereign body. We should govern the country. We should seek accountability. Here
is a case where the parliament has come with a robust law. Aadhaar. And it is completely
robust. And you have a problem that we're disobeying the Supreme Court order? Legally
speaking the law is well settled. The Parliament can remove the lacunae that the court points
out. If one of the arguments in court is that there is no legal framework, Parliament has come
with the Aadhaar Act. So the main ground goes. The second, This Aadhaar Act carries forward
the whole architecture: how biometrics should be done, under what conditions, for what
purpose, with what accountability. For the whole architecture, is available. It's not the ecosystem
Mr Jairam Ramesh. It's the architecture. Now sir if that is there, it is the law. There is no stay by
the Supreme Court, and we are being governed by a mandate of Aadhaar Act, passed by
Parliament. And while I'm standing here, I stand by the sovereignty of the Parliament as far as
law making is concerned. That is also the job of the law minister of India.

The Supreme Court says only this:

These interim orders were passed in 2015. 1102015 and 15102015.

Now the whole of the Aadhaar ecosystem is governed by this law. And my understanding of law
is clear: an interim order is only for an interim arrangement, till the Parliament steps in. It's not a
judgment. It has been referred to a 9 judge bench. Maybe this law will also be considered. I'm
very clear in my understanding of law that if the Parliament enacts the law, and unless the court
stays the law, this law will hold the field.
The second thing I'd like to highlight is that there were also issues before the SC, where the SC
mentioned verification of SIM card. We have 13 crore new verification of mobile connections by
SIM card. When you go an purchase a SIM card, you have to show verification of identity. You
needed a ration card, or a paper filled up, the paper used to be sent for examination. Then the
system of Aadhaar enabled verification for SIM card was introduced. I've got the copy of the
order, the SC has approved that as avery good system. Therefore I repeat, the law is there, has
not been stayed by the SC, the law will hold the field. B, by upholding the permissions granted
by the SC, in the mandate of the interim orders, there is provision under section 57, other things
can be done, and which are being done in the proper perspective sir. Coming to certain basic
things: let me ask a question: how safe is Aadhaar. Let me saw proudly, Aadhaar is safe. Let
me saw proudly, the data is secure. I want to make it very very emphatic. and I have reasons to
say so. Sir what is the purpose? The purpose is that minimum data is collected. One is core
biometrics and the other is demographic information. Core biometrics means fingerprint, iris
Scan and such other biological attributes. Demographic information relates to Name, Date of
birth, address and other information. But does not include Race, Religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity,
language, records of entitlement, income or medical history. Therefore, there is a clear statutory
injunction in law itself, that you can only take the iris, you can take the fingerprint, you can take
the name, sex, date of birth and address. And your email and mobile number is off, because if
you want to give, some information can be conveyed to you. If you don't want, it will not be
given. Therefore no religion, educational qualification, income, medical history, is not being
profiled. Let me show, my name is name. My fathers name is not there. My date of birth is there.
I'm a male and my aadhaar number, and at the back is my address in Patna.

Therefore, minimum information, maximum utilisation. What happens: we have a registrar, we

appoint an enrolment agency under a strict compliance. Let me explain what happens in
aadhaar. When we go to an aadhaar enrolment agency, we go with an MP card, others go with
a ration card. First the operator will enter his own biometrics to open the system. The system
will not open without that. Then our photo, iris is taken, and then it is collected and sent for the
process. Thereafter, we check if the name is rightly set or not. In India, we have over 113 crore
aadhaar cards and 99% adults have aadhaar. 73% children of age 5-18 have aadhaar. 5.5 crore
have aadhaar. 554 crore authentication has been done by the authority. 117 crore ekyc has
been done by the authority. 43.4 crore aadhaar have been linked with bank accounts. 69.97
crore LPG connections have been linked with Aadhaar. 17.51 crore ration cards linked with
aadhaar. 8.69 crore mnrega active cards linked with aadhaar. 18.1 crore pmjdy cards liked with
aadhaar. 1.04 crore passports are linked with aadhaar. 1.08 crore pan cards are linked with
aadhaar. 48 lakh pensioners use the aadhaar card. This is not a small number. India with a
population of 125 crore, has 113 crore people trusting aadhaar. the poor, 50-60 crore are not
complaining at all. on the contrary they are happy that what was the apprehension of rajiv
gandhi is turning out to be incorrect. when their payment in mnrega is made, they don't have to
fear some strongman of the mukhia will come to take his cut. it will go to the bank account.
these are the important qualitative changes which aadhaar is making in the lives of people. in
my considered view, when it goes for the final process, in 24 hours, 113 crore system will match
with the new aadhaar number. the beauty of this system: if I try to rebook myself, the system will
reject because the iris is there and fingerprint is there. remember, we've heard many cases that
someone else opens a bank account in the name of the son of the father, and pockets the entire
amount my father has willed me. we have done cases. fake bank accounts are a known
phenomenon. here, 113 crore aadhaar matches that.

lot of issues on privacy were raised. if a bank asks the aadhaar system, whether this is this
person, aadhaar doesn't know why bank is asking for authentication: to open a bank account or
make a payment. Bank only knows that this aadhaar number bears the name so and so. in case
of SIM card: if a mobile company gets KYC, the data is given only with the consent that you'll
give me a SIM card. If they misuse the SIM card data, he can go to jail for 3 years. That is
important.

In the last 6 years, we have canceled and blacklist 34000 operates who tried to make fake
aadhaar cards. Since december 2016, we've taken action against 1000 operators. Why I was
constrained to convey this is because we have a proper oversight system. What is the privacy
issue. I'm the IT minister of India. I cannot disclose my iris and fingerprint to anyone with my
own consent. If I do so, i can be prosecuted. Section 29(1). That is the specific mandate we
have given. What is #2? The other biometrics can be used only for aadhaar purposes as
outlined. If it is done for extraneous purposes, they can be hauled up. The hauling up will
include the officers of the UIDAI, the operators, the registrars, because this law is applicable to
all. I would like to inform Derek O'Brien: this NATGRID linking is not there. I want to deny it
emphatically. If NATGRID comes about, it will be violation of Section 29.

Consent is important: we have a whole provision. Consent is important. Section 7 is clear: you
need to come on aadhaar, but the benefits will not be denied to you. You can come with
alternative ID proof, but please apply for aadhaar. That is the whole reason. I'm asking myself
this question: if crores of poor people are not worried, then why are the rest worried? If the poor
comes to me and says: I'm poor, and I don't want MNREGA. The poor person is happy. Doesn't
the strongman of the mukhia not force them to give him a cut? He's happy that the gas subsidy
comes straight to his account. I used to travel in jalpaigudi. The constant refrain was that I never
got a cut. When the jandhan account was opened, a lady worker from the jalpaigudy tea garden
was saying on NDTV that she's so happy that her money will come directly to her bank account.
Technology is transparent.

Jairam Ramesh mentioned the CAG report. It is nice to see his belated appreciation of the CAG.
But sir, the ministry of Petroleum and natural gas, when this sketchy report came out, it had no
conclusive evidence to say that this was only due to the lowering of the international prices. This
is too judgmental, not factual. Ministry of petroleum issued a public statement. What they said:
for the FY14-15 for 3.3 crore consumer side pahelnet (mumbling) because they did a survey of
all the fake claimants, and they found that this was the fake number,w which will link it to the
DBT pahel. Furthermore, it should be that complete evidence of successful elimination of bogus
connections is seen in the phenomenal growth of non subsidised commercial LPG sale which
have registered an increase in 39.3% from April 15-16. This is in contrast to the previous
periods where the commercial LPG sale growth was negligible or declining. The facts are
speaking for itself. If the recipients are happy about it, what is the problem.

Now I come to the issue of privacy issue. What do we mean by privacy. Privacy is a certainly a
right which ought to be given respect. I'm not going to debate whether it should be a
fundamental right under Article 21 or not. Maybe as a democrat I feel that it should be a part of
fundamental right, the right to liberty. But I will await the final view of the SC because there are
conflicting views there. Right of privacy of individual must be respected. I'm not talking about the
affluent or the poor. For us every indian is common. the question to be considered is: are we
invading privacy under the aadhaar law, the answer is no.

A: the most minimum amount of data is being taken.

B: the authorities are under strict instructions to maintain that secrecy. If they flout , then they
can also suffer imprisonment and prosecution. Number 4, national security is important. When
we were discussing this. A question arose about how we maintain the privacy and security.
Because there was a clamour: give fingerprints. It's important for th nation. Then we came with
a mechanism: supreme court judgment in the case of call tracking, the 1995 judgment, said that
you track the call only when a Jt secretary officer, for reasons to be recorded certifies that, and
thereafter, you're done, but subsequently a cabinet secretary headed committee must approve
it. What have we done? Section 33 is clear, that even in case of national security, there will be a
designated jt secretary of the home ministry, who for reasons that shall be recorded in writing,
certifies that, but before coming into effect, a committee headed by the cabinet secretary and
consisting of the it secretary, the law secretary , will confirm it. this is the kind of safeguard we
have given, that the biometrics of an ordinary person, cannot be opened unless certified by this
level of high input. that has to be appreciated. In case of courts also, there is a clear provision
that such an order can only be given by a district judge, and not without hearing the authority.
My authority took a firm stand when CBI asked for biometrics, the authority said no. The matter
went to the HC, they lost, and then they went to the SC and got it stayed. The law is very clear:
except in the case of national security, we cannot disclose the data.
We have taken these kind of robust mechanisms available.

What is the issue of pre-app data? And are you sure of its authenticity. I want to assure this
house is that we are. We must salute the scientists and people of technology for having come
up with a robust system. I've visited their new centre in Bangalore, and it is a marvel of
technology. All the new people in IAS must be allowed to visit, as bharat darshan. How Indians
have developed this robust system, and how it is safe and secure. Therefore, there is no data
leak. There is no systematic problem. If anyone tries to be smart, the law ignites into action. We
have blacklisted 34,000 operators earlier,a nd 1000 since december have been blacklisted. In
case of MS Dhoni, it was part exuberance, and part negligence. When it was brought to my
notice. Dhoni had gone to get his aadhaar, and his photo was taken. Even MPs can become
pally with celebrities. When the operator took the photos, the biometrics captured on the
computer, the photo came up from the computer. That was it. The moment it was brought to my
notice, even before Mrs Dhoni has complained to me, I told that it is wrong,a nd I assured Mrs
dhoni that action will be taken, and the operator was blacklisted for 10 years. Not only in case of
Mr Dhoni, but 34000 blacklisting has been done, and we continue to be very firm.

2-3 quick points: 1. Do you need to reinforce that? Change of name is permissible. What about
change of biometrics? Sir, we have the technology, and taken feedback. The feedback is that
after 15-20 years your system matures, and even if you have cataract, your iris doesn't change,
unless there's an accident. Your fingerprint doesn't change even if you've become old. because
it is captured by a technology, and not by a photograph. The system scans that. But even if
there's a problem with fingerprints, your iris is there. your photograph is there. Therefore, in the
core biometrics, you have your fingerprint, your iris, and in the system you have your
photograph, and male/female and date of birth is there. This problem should not come. Since
Jairam Ramesh has mentioned a case in Andhra Pradesh, and of a particular district, I want to
assure him that, that I'll convey to the rural development ministry, and that the concerns should
be addressed. On infrastructure, it has to be improved. I want to assure this house, that earlier it
was known as NOFN. In its last 3 years, the past government had put in 358 km optical fibre. In
2.5 years, we've put in 1.78 lakh km of fibre. The system has to be improved. In the past govt,
Rs 11,000 crore had been invested in technology. In our government, Rs 1.27 lakh crore has
been invested. In the last 2 years, there was a company called Nokia, which had shut down.
We've had 12 crore mobile phones manufactured in India, 72 mobile manufacturing facilities
have been set up, of which 42 are mobile, and 30 are for battery and chargers.

I've never said they never did good work. They used to start good work, and we improved it,
which is why we were voted in. To improve the infrastructure is everyone's priority.

I want to make it clear on behalf of the government that no poor should be denied his subsidy
rights. Whether it's a mid day meal or any other benefits. We'll only say that you come on
aadhaar, but no denial will be there. Whatever we have learned, there are 1 crore ration cards,
and 74 lakh have taken ration. Can we deny, even in Kerala or Bihar or TN or UP, that all
people don't lift the ration allocation. And there are ghost ration cards, duplicate claimants,
fictitious claimants. So if the Rajasthan government, showcasing good governance, made
aadhaar mandatory, if they stopped 26 lakh ghosts, this is a good thing. this is saving poor
peoples money. The ration left over will go to poor people. The same is for pension. I want to
assure this house, if in any particular area, aadhaar specific cases come to light, but today the
country is excited and confident. I want to read EPW, which has a leftist slant, and has never
praised Narendra Modi. I have this World Bank World Development Report on Digital Identity.
They said that for example in India's fuel subsidy programme, implementing cash transfers to
aadhaar linked programs, to buy liquified petroleum gas cylinders, saved US$ 1 billion per year
when applied throughout the country. This si one of the many programs in India which is being
converted to direct using digital ID, potentially saving $11 billion in government expenditure to
reduce leakage, and efficiency gains. The World Bank's Chief Economist said: India's unique ID
number system aadhaar is a good example for the rest of the world to follow. The system in
India is the most sophisticated that I've seen, rommel told bloomberg. It is the basis for all kinds
of corrections that involve things like financial transactions. It could be good for the world if this
becomes widely adopted.
If the chief economist of the WB, and UN development report is praising it, then Jairamji, please
smile, because you started this. What has happened that you're...(hindi). I want to dispel
misconceptions. Aadhaar is robust. Aadhaar is safe. Aadhaar is secure, and totally accountable.
Aadhaar works under IT Ministry. I'm accountable to the Parliament, and they're accountable to
through us. What actions we're taking,a nd something which is giving results needs to be
respected.

What is the preamble of the aadhaar act? It is, An Act to provide for, as a good governance,
efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefit of services, expenditure of
which is from the consolidated fund of India. Now, if you're saving close to Rs 50,000 crore, if
people are happy, if the musclemen prowess of the sarpanch and the mukhia is stopped, it is
good development. If fake driving licenses are being curbed, what was happening? people used
to kill in an accident, run away, and used to get other driving license. Aadhaar enabled driving
license will stop you because if you have an aadhaar linked driving license in the name of
Mahesh, Ramesh cannot take it. This is the systematic change. Trust us, we're doing it fine, and
we're going do it fine.

Jairam Ramesh
He did not mention that there was a Supreme Court order after the act was passed, on the 14th
of September 2016. Secondly, he quotes selectively from the 2015 SC orders. Nowhere in
those SC orders does it say that the SC orders are contingent on parliament passing an act. All
it says is, we want to make it clear that the aadhaar scheme is purely voluntary and cannot be
made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this court, one way or the other.
My third point is that the cat is out of the bag. The hon. minister has said that the aadhaar bill
was brought for better targeting of subsidies. Absolutely 100% right. I'm 100% with you.
Unfortunately you've expanded it much beyond subsidies, which means that your bringing it as
a money bill was a complete mockery of parliamentary processes.

Derek O'Brien
I have two specific clarifications to ask for the minister: No one from the poor will be denied their
rights. You took up the case of MS Dhoni. On the 17th of February, a website had leaked the
aadhaar demographic data, of 5 lakh minors, because such children can be between 6-14, or
women rescued from sexual trafficking, or even disabled citizens. I bring this to your notice: if
you protected MS Dhoni, very good. But please protect these people who don't have the
celebrity status of a Dhoni. There are 5 lakh members, and there are minors, and there are
other such data leaks that happen. When you talk about biometrics and demographics, you
gave the difference between the two. This was not biometric data which was leaked: it was
demographic data which was leaked.
My second question: you've given us numbers of linked with aadhaar. After someone has an
aadhaar card, what are the other reasons. How will you bring the numbers down of people who
do not get the benefits, MNREGA, PDS or ICDS because of the other reasons were biometrics
do not work. How will you ensure those numbers come down. Now it's 40-45% who inspite of
the card are not getting the benefits.
Tapan Kumar Sen
As Jairam Rames pointed out, out of 1 lakh, 26 lakh is not taken. That was the claim for
consequentive 4-5 months. On an average is 25%. Do you consider the entire number is fake?
Or, and that holds good not only for PDS but also many other areas. These exclusions are not
entirely fake. Because of applying aadhaar, non matching of biometrics. Kindly allay my
apprehension, so far as biometrics are concerned, after growing old, and manual labour
biometrics get changed over time, which is why in many cases, no matching of biometrics
aadhaar card holders are deprived of benefits. How are you taking care of whether on a periodic
basis you're checking the biometrics.

T Subbarami Reddy, INC

What magic has come, lord shiva met you in his dream and said aadhaar is good?

Will the minister issue a clear instruction to govt of assam, that till completion of NRC (National
Register of Citizens), aadhaar card will be kept in abeyance?

What is the sanctity of section 37 subsection1 of aadhaar act, prohibiting the aggrieved party
from approaching the court directly, unless the UIDAI is itself a party to it?

RS Prasad
I will personally direct the officers, and under the Aadhaar Act, there is a provision for revision.
If workers and other become very old in MNREGA, and biometrics is creating some problem, a
special drive must be taken for the revision of their biometric.

AS far as the point that Derek O'Brien praised, I'll have to inquire it (about the instance of
aadhaar numbers being leaked on a govt website).

As far as Mr Reddy is concerned, why FIR can be filed only upon the authority of the UIDAI.
There's a rationale behind it. Kindly understand sir, 113 crore Aadhaar, 5 lakh operators. All the
state governments, central governments, municipal authorities helping as registrar. Sir, if we
allow everyone to file FIR, kindly understand the havoc we'll be creating in the system. Because
the punishment is very hard. If a company wants to interfere in the UIDAI system, apart from 3
years, he can be fined 10 lakh rupees. These are the heavy penalties. Therefore, first UIDAI
must verify the complaint, and they should file.

I have my differences with him. What the SC has said is very clear, that these things only are
allowed, and that was before the law came into being. I'm a lawyer and I'm also the law minister
of India, and I hold the majesty of this parliament to full authority. Once aadhaar act has come
into being, this will hold the field, and we have respect for the SC as well.

AS far as Ripun Bora is concerned, I know the problem in Assam is severe, because the
infiltration part. If an infiltrator takes aadhaar, he can be tracked easily and subsidy can be
stopped because he's verifiable. I will take note of your concern for aadhaar, and convey it to
the authorities.