The interim order of the Supreme Court on Aadhaar has two separate directives — both of which create a major problem for the future of the scheme. First, the Court has said the Government cannot deny benefit of service to people on the basis that they do not have Aadhaar cards. On the face of it, this is not a problematical order. If Aadhaar is voluntary, as the Government claims, how can some people be denied a benefit for not possessing a card? It highlights an inherent problem in the manner the scheme has been promoted. It was clear all along that to be truly effective, Aadhaar would have to be mandatory. Otherwise, its stated objective — of cutting through red tape and cutting out avaricious middlemen — simply cannot be met. Making Aadhaar mandatory for subsidies and other benefits is, moreover, not as draconian as its detractors make it out to be. If the Government provides Aadhaar cards to all beneficiaries, and the necessary infrastructure is in place, what prevents it from linking payments to their possession? But having persisted with the fiction that Aadhaar is voluntary, the Government is now in a bind as it prepares to roll out subsidies for such things as LPG cylinders on this basis.
The Government is going to be hard put to adhere to the second part of the order, which mandates that Aadhaar cards not be issued to illegal migrants. The fact is that Aadhaar is a means to authenticate the identity of an individual based on his/her unique biometrics. To demand that they be handed out on the basis of citizenship will undermine the entire scheme. There are many people in India today without a home or the necessary papers to establish citizenship. Given that some 430 million Aadhaar cards have already been issued, what happens now? Also, on what criteria the cards should be issued is a policy matter, an issue that the Supreme Court should have stayed well clear of.
A part of the blame for the current situation lies with the Government. Having promised to make the Unique Identification Authority of India a statutory body, it should have ensured that this was done quickly. A law clearly spelling out the powers of the UIDAI would have averted the kind of confusion that has prevailed between government departments — the wrangle with the Home Ministry over the collection of biometric data is a case in point. It would have also reduced the deep mistrust in certain quarters about Aadhaar — even if much of this borders on paranoia. Not surprisingly, the Government has begun talking of giving Aadhaar legal weight following the Court order. Had this been done long ago, it would have signalled that Aadhaar is not a sinister State project to intrude on privacy, but a tool to ensure taxpayer money actually reaches the targeted beneficiaries.