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.