Aadhaar: A Timeline

The first Aadhaar number is issued to Ranjna Sadashiv Sonwane, a tribal woman from Tembhali village in the Nandurbar district of Maharashtra. The national launch is attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who hands the Aadhaar letter to Ranjna. Her five-year-old son Hitesh receives the second Aadhaar number, marking his first proof of identity.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, chaired by BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, categorically rejects the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010. The committee calls the draft legislation "directionless" and lacking clarity on what the government would achieve through the UID scheme. It expresses apprehension that the data collected for Aadhaar could end up in the hands of private players and be misused, as private organizations and individuals are involved in the implementation process. The committee urges the government to "reconsider and review the UID scheme as also the proposals contained in the Bill in all its ramifications and bring forth a fresh legislation before Parliament." The report is presented to Parliament on 11 December 2011.

The government launches the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, aiming to transfer subsidies directly to the bank accounts of beneficiaries using Aadhaar as the bridge to eliminate intermediaries and reduce corruption. This marks a significant policy shift toward digital welfare delivery.

In a significant interim order, the Supreme Court rules that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for accessing essential government services and subsidies. The court emphasizes the voluntary nature of the program and directs that no citizen should suffer for not having an Aadhaar card even when the government makes it mandatory for certain benefits.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, is introduced in the Lok Sabha by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley as a Money Bill. This classification sparks widespread constitutional debate as it prevents the Rajya Sabha (where the government lacked a majority) from rejecting it, allowing only recommendations.

In a historic unanimous verdict, a nine-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India declares the Right to Privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The 547-page judgment signed by all nine judges overrules past observations that had questioned the existence of a fundamental right to privacy. This landmark judgment sets the stage for more rigorous scrutiny of the Aadhaar project's privacy implications and creates a constitutional framework for data protection.

The Tribune publishes an investigative report revealing that access to the Aadhaar database is being sold on WhatsApp for ₹500, sparking a national debate on data security. The investigative journalist obtains login credentials that provide unrestricted access to personal details of over one billion Aadhaar holders, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and photographs. For an additional ₹300, software to print Aadhaar cards is also made available. UIDAI officials in Chandigarh admit the breach appears to be a "major national security breach." Investigations reveal that over one lakh village-level enterprise (VLE) operators may have gained illegal access to the database.

The Supreme Court delivers its landmark judgment on the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act in a 4:1 majority decision. The majority judgment, written by Justice AK Sikri in concurrence with Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, upholds the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act for welfare schemes, finding it satisfies the proportionality test and serves a legitimate state interest. However, the court strikes down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which allowed private entities (such as banks, telecom companies, and schools) to demand Aadhaar for authentication. The court sets aside linking Aadhaar to bank accounts and mobile phone numbers, ruling these are not mandatory. While it upholds seeding of PAN with Aadhaar, it rules Aadhaar is not mandatory for school admissions, CBSE, UGC, and NEET examinations. Justice DY Chandrachud writes a dissenting opinion, arguing that the entire Aadhaar programme since 2009 suffers from constitutional infirmities and violations of fundamental rights, and that Parliament's passage of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill amounted to "a fraud on the Constitution." The court also strikes down the National Security Exception under the Aadhaar Act, restricting government access to individual Aadhaar data.

Parliament passes the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, allowing voluntary use of Aadhaar for Know Your Customer (KYC) purposes by banks, telecom companies, and other entities. The amendment effectively reinstates some private sector use of Aadhaar through a legislative route, circumventing the Supreme Court's striking down of Section 57. Critics argue this undermines the 2018 Supreme Court judgment.

Parliament passes the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which allows for the linking of Voter ID (EPIC - Electoral Photo Identity Card) with Aadhaar on a voluntary basis. The opposition criticizes the bill for potentially disenfranchising voters, enabling voter profiling, and violating the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that limited Aadhaar's scope. Civil liberties groups raise concerns about creating a surveillance apparatus through the linking of electoral and biometric databases.