With the new ruling on Aadhaar by the Supreme Court, is it mandatory for Aadhaar to be linked to UAN still?
Secondly, I have received an email from the EPFO asking to update Aadhaar numbers for employees who are already shown as exited. What should I do? Please advise.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
5Secondly, I have received an email from the EPFO asking to update Aadhaar numbers for employees who are already shown as exited. What should I do? Please advise.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Aadhaar Act and Its Implications
1. That the Parliament enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which received the assent of the President on 25th March 2016 and was published on the same date in the Gazette of India.
2. Proof of Aadhaar Number Necessary for Receipt of Subsidies
That Section 7 of the Act deals with "Proof of Aadhaar number necessary for receipt of certain subsidies, benefits, and services, etc." It reads as follows: "The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, for the purpose of establishing the identity of an individual as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit, or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India, require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or, in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar number has been assigned, such individual makes an application for enrolment: Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit, or service."
3. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India issued a Notification No. S.O.26 (E) dated 4th January 2017 for submission of Aadhaar as an identity document by the Pensioners and Members of the EPS, 1995. This was published in the Gazette of India on 4th January 2017.
4. Supreme Court Challenge to Aadhaar Act
That the constitutionality of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, known as the Aadhaar Act, was challenged in the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India in Writ Petition No. 494 of 2012. The Supreme Court decided the matter via its majority judgment dated 26.09.2018.
5. At Page 390 of 567 of the majority judgment, it is important to note what the Court has laid down at para 322, which reads as follows: "We also make it clear that a benefit that is earned by an individual (e.g., pension by a government employee) cannot be covered under Section 7 of the Act, as it is the right of the individual to receive such benefit. At the same time, we have gone through the list of notifications, which are issued under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. We find that most of these notifications pertain to various welfare schemes under which benefits, subsidies, or services are provided to the intending recipients. Moreover, in order to avail the benefits, only one-time verification is required except for a few services where annual verification is needed. It is only in respect of fertilizer subsidy where authentication is required every time the fertilizer is disbursed. However, it is clarified that fertilizer is also given on the basis of other documents such as Kisan Credit Card, etc. At the same time, we hope that the respondents shall not unduly expand the scope of 'subsidies, services, and benefits' thereby widening the net of Aadhaar, where it is not permitted otherwise. Insofar as notifications relating to children are concerned, we have already dealt with the same separately. We, thus, conclude this aspect as follows:
(a) 'Benefits' and 'services' as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the color of some kind of subsidies, etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby the Government is doling out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class.
(b) The expenditure thereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
(c) On that basis, CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC, etc., cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory as they are outside the purview of Section 7 and are not backed by any law."
6. The above judgment clearly states "benefits earned by an individual" cannot be covered under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. This means the Government cannot make linking of an employee's PF account to his Aadhaar number mandatory, or put the responsibility of validating an employee's Aadhaar details with his PF account information on employers.
7. That the Notification dated 4th January 2017 was issued under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which has been read down by the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, the notification loses its force and cannot be held to be a valid notification in the eyes of law.
It is also important to mention that the EPFO has now issued a circular no. LC-4(115)2018/Aadhar/LO/13470 dated 18.10.2018, which is self-explanatory wherein the ACC(HQ)(Legal) has advised the PF authorities not to take any coercive action after the judgment of the Supreme Court on Aadhaar. This circular is attached. A reply may be sent incorporating the above.
If any further clarification is required, the same can be sent on mail to me.
Thanks
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
1. That the Parliament enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which received the assent of the President on 25th March 2016 and was published on the same date in the Gazette of India.
2. Proof of Aadhaar Number Necessary for Receipt of Subsidies
That Section 7 of the Act deals with "Proof of Aadhaar number necessary for receipt of certain subsidies, benefits, and services, etc." It reads as follows: "The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, for the purpose of establishing the identity of an individual as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit, or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India, require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or, in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar number has been assigned, such individual makes an application for enrolment: Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit, or service."
3. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India issued a Notification No. S.O.26 (E) dated 4th January 2017 for submission of Aadhaar as an identity document by the Pensioners and Members of the EPS, 1995. This was published in the Gazette of India on 4th January 2017.
4. Supreme Court Challenge to Aadhaar Act
That the constitutionality of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, known as the Aadhaar Act, was challenged in the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India in Writ Petition No. 494 of 2012. The Supreme Court decided the matter via its majority judgment dated 26.09.2018.
5. At Page 390 of 567 of the majority judgment, it is important to note what the Court has laid down at para 322, which reads as follows: "We also make it clear that a benefit that is earned by an individual (e.g., pension by a government employee) cannot be covered under Section 7 of the Act, as it is the right of the individual to receive such benefit. At the same time, we have gone through the list of notifications, which are issued under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. We find that most of these notifications pertain to various welfare schemes under which benefits, subsidies, or services are provided to the intending recipients. Moreover, in order to avail the benefits, only one-time verification is required except for a few services where annual verification is needed. It is only in respect of fertilizer subsidy where authentication is required every time the fertilizer is disbursed. However, it is clarified that fertilizer is also given on the basis of other documents such as Kisan Credit Card, etc. At the same time, we hope that the respondents shall not unduly expand the scope of 'subsidies, services, and benefits' thereby widening the net of Aadhaar, where it is not permitted otherwise. Insofar as notifications relating to children are concerned, we have already dealt with the same separately. We, thus, conclude this aspect as follows:
(a) 'Benefits' and 'services' as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the color of some kind of subsidies, etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby the Government is doling out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class.
(b) The expenditure thereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
(c) On that basis, CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC, etc., cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory as they are outside the purview of Section 7 and are not backed by any law."
6. The above judgment clearly states "benefits earned by an individual" cannot be covered under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. This means the Government cannot make linking of an employee's PF account to his Aadhaar number mandatory, or put the responsibility of validating an employee's Aadhaar details with his PF account information on employers.
7. That the Notification dated 4th January 2017 was issued under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which has been read down by the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, the notification loses its force and cannot be held to be a valid notification in the eyes of law.
It is also important to mention that the EPFO has now issued a circular no. LC-4(115)2018/Aadhar/LO/13470 dated 18.10.2018, which is self-explanatory wherein the ACC(HQ)(Legal) has advised the PF authorities not to take any coercive action after the judgment of the Supreme Court on Aadhaar. This circular is attached. A reply may be sent incorporating the above.
If any further clarification is required, the same can be sent on mail to me.
Thanks
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Supreme court judgment on bifurcation of PF.pdf