Aadhaar: To Be Mandatory, or Not to Be

Aadhaar: To Be Mandatory, or Not to Be is an investigative article published in Governance Now on 16 February 2017. Written by Pratap Vikram Singh, the piece examines the legal ambiguity surrounding Aadhaar’s mandatory status, documenting how government departments systematically violated Supreme Court interim orders that maintained the scheme’s voluntary nature. It analyses the Department of Food and Public Distribution’s decision to mandate Aadhaar for PDS access, presenting civil society evidence of authentication failures and fraud in Rajasthan.

Contents

  1. Article Details
  2. Full Text
  3. Aadhaar Violations Table
  4. Context and Background
  5. External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:
Governance Now
📅 Date:
16 February 2017
👤 Authors:
Pratap Vikram Singh
📄 Type:
News Analysis
📰 Publication Link:
Read Online

Full Text

Aadhaar is as voluntary as voluntary retirement schemes – which usually leave you with little choice.


Ever since the unique identity number, or Aadhaar, was introduced in India, it has carefully avoided spelling out its status – whether it is mandatory or not. The official stance, even after a change in government, remains that Aadhaar is 'essential' to avail specific services but it is voluntary on the citizen to apply for it or not. The long-awaited law, passed last year, has also avoided the word 'mandatory', even as the Supreme Court in a series of verdicts has maintained it cannot be mandatory.

Section 7 of the law states that anyone who wants to avail government subsidies must produce the Aadhaar card. But the Supreme Court, in its September 2016 ruling, reiterated its 2015 ruling, saying that the unique identification number cannot be made mandatory. Blatantly flouting this interim ruling, many government departments have made Aadhaar mandatory. For example, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) made it mandatory to draw pensions.

Table documenting instances where Aadhaar was made mandatory or used beyond Supreme Court permissions between October 2015 and January 2017, listing dates, services affected, and type of violation.
Table listing documented violations of Supreme Court interim orders on Aadhaar, showing cases where Aadhaar was made mandatory or extended beyond permitted schemes.
(This content was compiled by SFLC.in, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

The latest to join the bandwagon is the department of food and public distribution – for the highly sensitive PDS. In February, it stated that those buying ration from fair price shops (FPS) must show their UIDs at the counter from June onwards. Supporting this initiative, Ravi Shankar Prasad, IT minister, said that the government will make all 5.58 lakh FPS Aadhaar-enabled. The ration shops in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan are already Aadhaar-enabled, he added.

But this move by the ministry of food and consumer affairs is seen as a u-turn from its earlier stand. In 2015-16, though it had pushed for Aadhaar-enabled FPS across the country, and initiated direct cash transfer in place of subsidised ration in all union territories, it had publicly maintained that Aadhaar was not mandatory.

Now, the ministry's new stand has kicked up a storm. The age-old arguments for and against a mandatory Aadhaar and its ability to curb corruption in PDS is far from over.

Aadhaar originally derives its power from the ability to weed out ghost beneficiaries, that is, fake names on record, and multiple beneficiaries. If used with discretion, Aadhaar can plug the mammoth leakages in the PDS, and improve it for the targeted beneficiaries.

Civil society activists, on the other hand, are wary of Aadhaar's impact on ration distribution under the National Food Security Act (NFSA). According to their surveys in Delhi, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Telangana, the fraud in the PDS relates to the quantity of ration and not to any identification of the beneficiary.

"The government keeps reiterating its belief in 'evidence-based policy making'. Its own evidence shows that Aadhaar integration in the PDS has been a disaster," says Reetika Khera, an economist.

"In Rajasthan, we found that in many cases biometrics of beneficiaries don't match, as their fingerprints are blurred. When the department asks the dealers to distribute the ration without authentication, they would just siphon it off," she adds. Several times, even if the ration is given after Aadhaar authentication, the quantity would be less.

"In spite of this, the government has made it compulsory. Should we infer from this that the government's intention is to ruin the PDS?" she asks.

The story doesn't end here. "In Kukarkhera panchayat in Rajsamand district, one of the dealers siphoned ration of 77 beneficiaries by authenticating himself those many times," reveals Shankar, an activist with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). An FIR was filed against the dealer. The Rajasthan food department found similar cases in Alwar and a few other places, he says. The officials found PoS transactions at 5 am and 11 pm, which alarmed them as FPS are usually open during the day time.

According to Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), it is a technological utopianism to think that making Aadhaar mandatory would end corruption. "Look at what happened in the case of Aadhaar being made mandatory in the distribution of subsidy. In Karnataka, a team of officials found that fake Aadhaar numbers were used for diverting subsidised LPG cylinders," Abraham said.

In any case, with making Aadhaar virtually mandatory for PDS, the government is clearly going against the SC ruling. The SFLC has made a list of 120 cases where the government has violated the SC ruling between September 2015 and September 2016 (see box). It has also sent the list to MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, requesting him to seek clarification about the government's position. The organisation is yet to receive a response.

(The article appears in the February 16–28, 2017 issue)

Back to Top ⇧

Aadhaar Violations Table

Violations of Supreme Court orders dated 11 August 2015 & 15 October 2015 in KS Puttaswamy & Others vs Union of India & Others (W.P.(C) 494/2012)

Date Case Type of violation
1 January 2017 Online systems for disbursement of loans to people belonging to backward classes Beyond the permitted schemes
13 January 2017 BSNL launches Aadhaar-based eKYC and digital customer engagement Beyond the permitted schemes
8 January 2017 Aadhaar mandatory for MGNREGS work from April Made mandatory
3 January 2017 Aadhaar made mandatory in certain schools in Delhi for student admission Both
17 December 2016 Without Aadhaar patients to pay 10 times more for registration at AIIMS Beyond the permitted schemes
5 December 2016 Aadhaar must for senior citizen train ticket concession from 1 April Both
1 December 2016 Haryana board makes Aadhaar mandatory for Class 10 and 12 Both
1 December 2016 No subsidy on LPG without Aadhaar-linked account Made mandatory
1 December 2016 Migrants working at airport construction sites must have Aadhaar card Both
12 November 2016 Aadhaar mandatory for RTE quota seat reservations Both
7 November 2016 Aadhaar mandatory for kerosene consumers in Nashik Both
26 October 2016 Aadhaar mandatory for ration in Mysuru Made mandatory
29 September 2016 Aadhaar needed to get loan from microfinance companies Both
27 September 2016 Aadhaar must for wrestlers at national level tournaments Both
22 August 2016 Aadhaar must for prime minister's housing scheme Both
4 June 2016 Submit Aadhaar number or forget LPG subsidy (Nashik) Made mandatory
9 February 2016 UP govt proposes making Aadhaar mandatory for kids' vaccination Beyond the permitted schemes
1 January 2016 Mention Aadhaar for filing governance related grievances: Govt Beyond the permitted schemes
20 October 2015 Aadhaar compulsory for budding entrepreneurs to register their business Both

Context and Background

This article appeared during a critical period when Aadhaar’s legal status remained contested despite the passage of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 in March 2016. The Act was introduced as a Money Bill, bypassing the Rajya Sabha’s substantive review powers, and received presidential assent on 25 March 2016.

Section 7 of the Act permitted Central and State Governments to mandate Aadhaar for receiving subsidies, benefits, or services funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. However, Supreme Court interim orders from 11 August 2015 and 15 October 2015 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India had restricted Aadhaar to voluntary use in six schemes: PDS, LPG subsidies, MGNREGA, PM Jan Dhan Yojana, National Social Assistance Programme, and EPFO. The Court’s September 2016 ruling reiterated these restrictions pending final constitutional adjudication.

Government departments systematically ignored these interim orders. The Software Freedom Law Centre documented 120 violations between September 2015 and September 2016, spanning diverse services from AIIMS hospital registration to microfinance loans, wrestling tournament participation to school admissions. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation mandated Aadhaar for pension withdrawals in contravention of court orders.

The Department of Food and Public Distribution’s February 2017 announcement requiring Aadhaar at all 558,000 Fair Price Shops by June 2017 marked a significant policy reversal. During 2015–16, whilst promoting Aadhaar-enabled PDS and direct cash transfers in Union Territories, the ministry had publicly maintained voluntariness. IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad announced Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan had already implemented Aadhaar-enabled ration distribution.

Civil society research documented authentication failures and new fraud patterns. Economist Reetika Khera’s surveys across Delhi, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Telangana found PDS corruption related to quantity diversion rather than beneficiary identification. Rajasthan fieldwork revealed biometric authentication failures due to worn fingerprints amongst manual labourers. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan documented a dealer in Kukarkhera panchayat, Rajsamand district, who authenticated himself 77 times to siphon beneficiaries’ rations. Rajasthan’s food department detected similar fraud in Alwar, with point-of-sale transactions occurring at 5 AM and 11 PM when shops remained closed.

Centre for Internet and Society executive director Sunil Abraham cited Karnataka investigations uncovering fake Aadhaar numbers used to divert subsidised LPG cylinders, contradicting claims that biometric authentication eliminated subsidy fraud. SFLC submitted its violation documentation to MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, requesting parliamentary clarification on the government’s stance regarding Supreme Court compliance, but received no response by February 2017.

The constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act would ultimately be determined in September 2018, when a 4:1 Supreme Court majority upheld most provisions whilst striking down Section 57’s extension to private entities and mandatory bank account linking.

📄 This page was created on 23 January 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .