Identity Project

How the government got the Supreme Court's approval to link subsidy schemes with Aadhaar

But the data cited by the government merits closer scrutiny.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that  it was not mandatory for citizens accessing public services to be enrolled in the Aadhar programme. But it made an exception for the public distribution system for food, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas.

This is the first time that the court has specifically allowed the use of the 12-digit unique identity number in public schemes. In doing so, it has accepted the government's contention that by verifying beneficiaries, the biometrics-based identity database helps in the effective implementation of social welfare schemes and saves several thousand crore rupees of public funds.

To persuade the court to allow Aadhaar verification in the public distribution system, the government claimed the limited use of Aadhaar had already resulted in massive savings.

Eliminating 'ghosts, fakes, duplicates'

In affidavits submitted to the court on July 22,  the government said various ministries and state departments find Aadhaar to be the most reliable way of tracking “conflicting/similar benefits going to the same citizen and preventing unscrupulous elements from diverting the public resources for illegal purposes".

At the time of Aadhaar enrolment, an individual's biometrics and demographics are matched against every other person who has previously enrolled. This process is called de-duplication.

The government said it spent over Rs 4 lakh crore on various welfare programmes in 2014-'15. It claimed that linking the Aadhaar number to the bank accounts of beneficiaries in direct benefit transfer schemes had “considerably reduced the subsidy burden”.

In direct benefit transfer schemes, the government deposits cash into the bank accounts of people instead of giving them material subsidies like food rations or gas cylinders. In its affidavit, the government told the Supreme Court that the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas cylinders had fallen in 20 districts where direct benefits transfers had been implemented since August 2013, even as consumption had gone up in the rest of the country.

According to data submitted by the Ministry of Finance, between September 2012 to January 2013 and September 2013 to January 2014, the sales of LPG by oil marketing companies went up by 11% in India. But in the 20 districts where the Aadhaar-based direct benefits transfer scheme was being implemented, it fell by 10%. “Given that the subsidy burden of LPG is Rs 46,458 crore, even a 10% saving would mean saving a subsidy of Rs 4,600 crore,” the affidavit said.

It stated that in the process of de-duplication carried out by Indian Oil corporation Limited on basis of 8.08 crore Aadhaar, where the IOCL checked whether the same Aadhaar was found against two or more LPG connections, it found 8 lakh such instances, or 1%.

Aadhaar and MNREGA

Further, the government claimed studies in various states showed that Aadhaar was useful in eliminating “bogus and ghost workers” from the database of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee programme. The studies were neither named nor included in the petition. Nevertheless, the government said that after it linked MNREGA payments with Aadhaar, it found that in a sample of 1,573 MNREGA workers in Burdwan district of West Bengal, 13%  were bogus job-cards. In the 24 North Paragana district, the bogus job-cards constituted 18% in a sample of 1,530 workers.

Citing data from other states for various schemes, it said that if the court did not modify its previous orders that prohibited the use of Aadhaar in public schemes, “irreparable loss will be caused to the intended beneficiaries and the public exchequer”.

It said that it intended to make Aadhaar enrolment a mandatory requirement only under particular schemes, appending a list of four subsidy schemes (LPG, kerosene, food, fertilisers) and 35 welfare schemes (MNREGA, Janani Suraksha Yojana, Indira Awas Yojana, National Social Security Fund for Unorganised Sector Workers, and various health and crop insurance schemes). At the same time, it asked to be allowed to seek further modifications of the court's orders as and when direct benefits transfers are extended to other schemes.

It included passports, PAN cards, railway bookings, telecommunications (mobile, internet, data), and prison management systems among the services that it proposed to link with Aadhaar.

Discrepancies in data

On closer scrutiny, however, the data used by the government to buttress its case for the use of Aadhaar in subsidy schemes reveals a mixed picture on the removal of fake claimants.

To take one instance, the government has claimed that the elimination of “bogus” workers in the MNREGA database in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana led to savings of Rs 127 crore. Of 3.5 crore workers, 12.78 lakh workers were found to be bogus, it stated. But a closer look reveals that over 2.7 lakhs were dead, and 8 lakh, or three-fourth of the workers, had migrated to other places. Essentially, this means that the government included inactive workers as bogus workers. 'Inactive workers' are defined by the Ministry of Rural Development as those who have not worked in the scheme in the last financial year. Of the 3.5 crore workers cited, only one lakh were found to have two job cards.

Curiously, the figure of 12.78 lakh crore as bogus workers in MNREGA in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana alone is nearly 20 times the figure cited for all of India by the Minister of State for Rural Development Sudarshan Bhagat in response to a question asked in Parliament. The response filed on March 5 said that after using Aadhaar, 63,943 duplicate job cards had been found and eliminated in 300 districts all over India.

This points to the need for a closer scrutiny of the government's claims before it can be said whether Aadhaar has led to better targeting of public schemes or simply eliminated those who failed to enrol in its database.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Relying on the power of habits to solve India’s mammoth sanitation problem

Adopting three simple habits can help maximise the benefits of existing sanitation infrastructure.

India’s sanitation problem is well documented – the country was recently declared as having the highest number of people living without basic sanitation facilities. Sanitation encompasses all conditions relating to public health - especially sewage disposal and access to clean drinking water. Due to associated losses in productivity caused by sickness, increased healthcare costs and increased mortality, India recorded a loss of 5.2% of its GDP to poor sanitation in 2015. As tremendous as the economic losses are, the on-ground, human consequences of poor sanitation are grim - about one in 10 deaths, according to the World Bank.

Poor sanitation contributes to about 10% of the world’s disease burden and is linked to even those diseases that may not present any correlation at first. For example, while lack of nutrition is a direct cause of anaemia, poor sanitation can contribute to the problem by causing intestinal diseases which prevent people from absorbing nutrition from their food. In fact, a study found a correlation between improved sanitation and reduced prevalence of anaemia in 14 Indian states. Diarrhoeal diseases, the most well-known consequence of poor sanitation, are the third largest cause of child mortality in India. They are also linked to undernutrition and stunting in children - 38% of Indian children exhibit stunted growth. Improved sanitation can also help reduce prevalence of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Though not a cause of high mortality rate, NTDs impair physical and cognitive development, contribute to mother and child illness and death and affect overall productivity. NTDs caused by parasitic worms - such as hookworms, whipworms etc. - infect millions every year and spread through open defecation. Improving toilet access and access to clean drinking water can significantly boost disease control programmes for diarrhoea, NTDs and other correlated conditions.

Unfortunately, with about 732 million people who have no access to toilets, India currently accounts for more than half of the world population that defecates in the open. India also accounts for the largest rural population living without access to clean water. Only 16% of India’s rural population is currently served by piped water.

However, there is cause for optimism. In the three years of Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, the country’s sanitation coverage has risen from 39% to 65% and eight states and Union Territories have been declared open defecation free. But lasting change cannot be ensured by the proliferation of sanitation infrastructure alone. Ensuring the usage of toilets is as important as building them, more so due to the cultural preference for open defecation in rural India.

According to the World Bank, hygiene promotion is essential to realise the potential of infrastructure investments in sanitation. Behavioural intervention is most successful when it targets few behaviours with the most potential for impact. An area of public health where behavioural training has made an impact is WASH - water, sanitation and hygiene - a key issue of UN Sustainable Development Goal 6. Compliance to WASH practices has the potential to reduce illness and death, poverty and improve overall socio-economic development. The UN has even marked observance days for each - World Water Day for water (22 March), World Toilet Day for sanitation (19 November) and Global Handwashing Day for hygiene (15 October).

At its simplest, the benefits of WASH can be availed through three simple habits that safeguard against disease - washing hands before eating, drinking clean water and using a clean toilet. Handwashing and use of toilets are some of the most important behavioural interventions that keep diarrhoeal diseases from spreading, while clean drinking water is essential to prevent water-borne diseases and adverse health effects of toxic contaminants. In India, Hindustan Unilever Limited launched the Swachh Aadat Swachh Bharat initiative, a WASH behaviour change programme, to complement the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. Through its on-ground behaviour change model, SASB seeks to promote the three basic WASH habits to create long-lasting personal hygiene compliance among the populations it serves.

This touching film made as a part of SASB’s awareness campaign shows how lack of knowledge of basic hygiene practices means children miss out on developmental milestones due to preventable diseases.

Play

SASB created the Swachhata curriculum, a textbook to encourage adoption of personal hygiene among school going children. It makes use of conceptual learning to teach primary school students about cleanliness, germs and clean habits in an engaging manner. Swachh Basti is an extensive urban outreach programme for sensitising urban slum residents about WASH habits through demos, skits and etc. in partnership with key local stakeholders such as doctors, anganwadi workers and support groups. In Ghatkopar, Mumbai, HUL built the first-of-its-kind Suvidha Centre - an urban water, hygiene and sanitation community centre. It provides toilets, handwashing and shower facilities, safe drinking water and state-of-the-art laundry operations at an affordable cost to about 1,500 residents of the area.

HUL’s factory workers also act as Swachhata Doots, or messengers of change who teach the three habits of WASH in their own villages. This mobile-led rural behaviour change communication model also provides a volunteering opportunity to those who are busy but wish to make a difference. A toolkit especially designed for this purpose helps volunteers approach, explain and teach people in their immediate vicinity - their drivers, cooks, domestic helps etc. - about the three simple habits for better hygiene. This helps cast the net of awareness wider as regular interaction is conducive to habit formation. To learn more about their volunteering programme, click here. To learn more about the Swachh Aadat Swachh Bharat initiative, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hindustan Unilever and not by the Scroll editorial team.