The way executive orders are being passed on a regular basis making, for instance, quoting the Aadhaar number compulsory for applying for a driving licence, opening a bank account, getting a PAN card, or even filing income-tax returns, shows that the government is trying to force all residents (and naturally all citizens) to enroll for Aadhaar, whose constitutional validity is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court. This is just a step from converting Aadhaar into a national identity card, that would be a complete break from the British system of governance, which we still follow in substantial measure. In the UK, the driving licence largely suffices, or the passport. America has a passport card issued by the federal government, but it’s not mandatory, with the states being content with the driving licence, a bank card or a similar identification document for gaining state benefits.
Police states are strict about national IDs to be produced on demand. Many Europeans have a national card, which works like a passport within the EU and sometimes to apply for certain benefits. The present national security adviser, Ajit Doval, had reportedly said after he retired as Intelligence Bureau director that the use of Aadhaar was originally intended for national security purposes, and the delivery of social benefits was added on later. In keeping with India’s stoutly democratic tradition and temperament, it’s a pity the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the government to make Aadhaar compulsory for activities other than getting state benefits, although the court’s interim orders since 2013 make it plain that having the UID (Aadhaar) number wasn’t mandatory.
Since the very idea of Aadhaar faces a legal challenge, on the grounds of invasion of privacy (as it is biometric) and on curtailing liberties, it was expected that the Supreme Court would restrain the government from expanding the ambit of Aadhaar requirements until a seven-bench Constitution Bench has pronounced on the validity of this contested scheme. The Unique Identity Authority of India began life as an “attached office” of the Planning Commission in 2009 in order to ensure that government benefits reached the intended beneficiaries (without risk of duplication or falsification of identity). But in 2016, it became a statutory authority through an act in the teeth of opposition in the Rajya Sabha, obliging the government to pass it as a finance bill, which escapes Upper House scrutiny. The court could have been mindful of this too. Aadhaar isn’t a proof of residence. On the ground, it is obtainable through dubious means. It may be dangerous to let it be a licence for every use.
