By Sujit Bhar
On the surface, a recent Meghalaya High Court ruling may seem procedural—a mere directive allowing individuals to access government benefits through alternative identification, in case they are unable or unwilling to produce an Aadhaar number. However, sifting through the legalese of the interim order by Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh, one arrives at a larger question: Has Aadhaar failed in its purpose as India’s universal identity instrument? And if so, what is its future in India’s increasingly digitized and data-driven public administration framework?
A PIL filed by social activist Greneth M Sangma challenged a Meghalaya government’s notification of October 31, 2023, which made Aadhaar compulsory for accessing government benefits. In response, the High Court recently ruled that Aadhaar cannot be the sole form of identification, especially for access to essential benefits such as post-matriculation scholarships for SC/ST students or financial assistance schemes.
The Court’s reasoning draws heavily on the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016—a legislation originally envisioned to plug leakages in government welfare schemes by ensuring unique and verified identification. The Court clarified that the Aadhaar Act does not mandate Aadhaar as the only valid form of ID and underscored that non-possession of Aadhaar cannot be used to disqualify a person from accessing legitimate entitlements.
When Aadhaar was first introduced by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in 2010—the first Aadhaar number was issued on September 29 of that year to Ranjna Sadashiv Sonwane, a resident of Tembhali village in Nandurbar, Maharashtra—it was heralded as a revolutionary tool to bring transparency, efficiency and financial inclusion to the country’s massive welfare delivery architecture. It was intended to assign a unique 12-digit number to every Indian resident, based on biometric and demographic data, and link this number to various public services to eliminate corruption and duplication.
At the heart of this vision was the idea that Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT)—such as LPG subsidies, pensions, scholarships, and MNREGA wages—would reach the rightful beneficiaries directly, bypassing corrupt intermediaries. Aadhaar was positioned as the Indian equivalent of the US’ Social Security Number (SSN), capable of becoming the singular ID that would validate one’s existence within the Indian socio-political ecosystem. Yet, a decade and-a-half later, this grand vision is beginning to fray at the edges.
LEGAL AMBIGUITIES
This is not the first time the judiciary has cast a critical eye on Aadhaar’s mandatory use. In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, while upholding the Aadhaar scheme in principle, placed stringent restrictions on its mandatory usage. Here is a breakdown of what happened in 2018.
The Court had, in a 4:1 majority, ruled that while Aadhaar could be used for government welfare schemes and for linking with PAN cards, it was not mandatory for services like mobile connections or for private entities to demand it. This is a legal position (and judgment) that has been flouted almost everywhere later, though no contempt has come of them.
A detailed breakdown of that verdict is as follows:
Upholding the Act: The Supreme Court upheld the Aadhaar Act’s validity, recognising its potential to empower marginalised sections of society by facilitating access to essential services and subsidies.
Not mandatory: While Aadhaar was deemed valid, the Court struck down certain provisions, particularly those that made it mandatory for private entities to demand Aadhaar details for services. This has been flouted everywhere, with every manner of private entity demanding not just the inclusion of other documents, but Aadhaar as well.
Dissenting opinion: Justice DY Chandrachud dissented, arguing that the Act was unconstitutional and violated Article 110. The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging the 2018 judgment.
FURTHER CONFUSION
That being the legal position, the intrinsic importance and value of Aadhaar has, obviously, deteriorated. As the Meghalaya High Court observed that Aadhaar is meant for “residents”—defined as those who have lived in India for 182 days in the preceding 12 months—as opposed to only Indian citizens, further complicates matters. This definition implies a potential inclusion of foreigners (as well as PIOs) as beneficiaries of schemes, raising concerns over security, duplication, and misapplication.
The High Court’s order now adds a regional judicial voice to a growing national chorus questioning the overreach of Aadhaar. It has, in effect, reaffirmed the non-exclusivity of Aadhaar, bringing the conversation back to the fundamental query: Is Aadhaar indispensable, or just another ID?
The Aadhaar system has faced multiple challenges on the ground:
Authentication failures: In rural areas with poor internet connectivity or inadequate biometric infrastructure, Aadhaar-based authentication often fails, causing denial of essential services.
Exclusion errors: Numerous cases have emerged where people—especially the elderly, manual labourers, or those with worn-out fingerprints—have been denied rations or pensions due to Aadhaar mismatches.
Data privacy concerns: The lack of a comprehensive data protection law has made Aadhaar data vulnerable to misuse, breaches, and even commercial exploitation.
Multiplicity of IDs: Contrary to its vision of unifying identification, Aadhaar has merely added another layer to the already crowded space of voter IDs, PAN cards, ration cards, passports, and more.
Given these challenges, public trust in Aadhaar has waned, and government departments themselves continue to accept alternative IDs in many services, creating a patchy implementation framework.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RAMIFICATIONS
The northeastern states, particularly Meghalaya, have historically maintained a distinct socio-political identity. The imposition of a uniform digital ID like Aadhaar is seen by many as an infringement on ethnic autonomy and tribal privacy. Furthermore, Meghalaya, with its difficult terrain, infrastructural constraints, and large indigenous population, presents unique challenges for biometric implementation.
In this context, the High Court’s order is not just a technical judgment—it is a socio-political statement, reinforcing the right of tribal and marginalized populations to access benefits without being forcibly assimilated into a digitized matrix.
AADHAAR VS US’ SSN
In the US, the SSN has evolved over decades to become the de facto identifier for everything—from taxation and employment to healthcare and credit history. But its functionality rests on a robust institutional framework, strong data protection laws, and limited scope of use.
Aadhaar, by contrast, was rolled out with breathtaking speed, and was intended to serve as a universal ID for a population over a billion strong. But it lacked similar levels of legal safeguards or clarity of purpose, so it has often become an instrument of exclusion rather than inclusion.
THE REDUNDANCY QUESTION
That begs a very important question: Is Aadhaar becoming redundant? Given that courts have now stepped in multiple times to prevent Aadhaar from becoming mandatory, one has to question whether the government’s massive investment in the UID project—till August 2019, the government had spent Rs 11,366 crore
($ 1.3 billion) on the project—has delivered on its promise. However, Aadhaar still holds value in some specific use cases:
- Linking with PAN cards for income tax filing.
- LPG subsidy transfers.
- Biometric authentication for banking and mobile wallets.
However, its role as a universal key to citizenship, benefits, and access is now deeply contested. The system’s inability to guarantee universal service access, the lack of legal enforceability, and growing judicial resistance are weakening Aadhaar’s centrality in India’s governance architecture.
So, what is the way forward? Despite the criticism, Aadhaar is not entirely a failed idea. What is required is a thorough re-evaluation and rationalization of its use. Some possible reforms include:
Clarifying scope: Legally define where Aadhaar can and cannot be used, avoiding a blanket imposition across unrelated sectors, as is being done almost everywhere.
Strengthening privacy laws: Expedite the implementation of data protection legislation to allay public fears of surveillance and data misuse.
Improving access infrastructure: Ensure that biometric authentication failures do not translate to denial of rights. Offline modes and exception handling must be robust. Of course, this is easier said than done, given the abysmal condition of India’s digital footprint.
Building public trust: Transparency, opt-out clauses, and public education about Aadhaar’s limitations and benefits can help bridge the trust deficit.
NEED FOR A RETHINK
The Meghalaya High Court’s ruling is emblematic of a larger national rethink on Aadhaar. As the government’s grand identity project enters its second decade, the questions it raises are no longer technical, but philosophical: What does it mean to identify an Indian? Is identity a matter of data, or dignity? Just prior to the Bihar elections, these are hugely pertinent questions.
Unless these questions are answered with care, Aadhaar risks becoming yet another bureaucratic relic—a powerful idea undermined by flawed implementation and legal overreach. Its future depends not on how widely it is mandated, but on how equitably and sensitively it is used.
Aadhaar was meant to be a key—but for many, it has become a locked door. The time has come to choose whether it remains a symbol of inclusion, or fades into becoming a cautionary tale in India’s digital governance journey.