Most Indians - including me - recognise Aadhaar as a useful identity instrument. It has simplified many interactions with the State and reduced friction in service delivery. It also has its drawbacks. But usefulness must not quietly slide into compulsion.
My concern today is not Aadhaar itself, but how it is increasingly being positioned as the unavoidable pivot of citizen–State interaction, often without clear legislative backing or identifiable executive orders. Routine, non-welfare services - such as updating a driving licence or renewing a vehicle registration - are now being conditioned on Aadhaar-linked mobile authentication through government portals, despite repeated judicial confirmation by the Supreme Court that Aadhaar was intended to be voluntary except where Parliament expressly mandates otherwise.
This phenomenon – we called it function creep in the software programming world - occurs when a system introduced for limited purposes gradually expands into areas never openly ( debated or legislated ). The shift rarely happens through statute; it happens through portal design, FAQs, and technical “requirements” that leave citizens with no meaningful alternative. When code determines access to rights, accountability becomes diffuse and remedies harder to pursue.
I have chosen to enforce my recognised right not to share my Aadhaar number where the law does not mandate it. As a consequence, I have declined to renew the registration of my car, and applied for non-use certificate rather than comply with a coercive mechanism designed to extract Aadhaar data for a routine, non-welfare service. I fully appreciate that this is not a step most people can realistically take - and that in itself should be cause to pause for thought.
Some people say this isn’t really a problem because you don’t have to share your Aadhaar number - you can use a masked Aadhaar or a Virtual ID instead. What usually isn’t mentioned is that both of these still require a mobile number to be linked to Aadhaar. Without a linked mobile, you simply cannot generate a Virtual ID or complete OTP authentication.
The important point is this: Aadhaar enrolment itself makes giving a mobile number optional. ( Govt. of India Gazette ID CG-DL-E-17012024-251386 Page 46 Row (e) ) That was a conscious design choice. But when government portals deny services unless you use a masked Aadhaar or Virtual ID - which only work if a mobile is linked - that optional choice disappears in real life.
Ergo Aadhaar may be “voluntary” on paper, yet becomes compulsory through the back door. A right that exists only at the time of enrolment, but not when you actually need public services, isn’t a real choice at all.
That is the concern I am raising - not opposition to Aadhaar, but opposition to turning an optional system into a mandatory one through technical and procedural pressure.
I am in the process of challenging this practice by way of a writ petition on limited constitutional and statutory grounds. I have prepared a draft petition, and am presently seeking legal assistance - preferably pro bono - to refine and pursue it. Others who are similarly affected, or who have engaged with this issue professionally or academically, are welcome to connect.
This is not an anti-Aadhaar position. It is a pro-constitutional one. Voluntariness must exist in practice, not merely in judgments or policy documents. Questioning process is not obstruction; it is responsible citizenship.
