Aadhaar should have legal validity

Rajinder Chaudhry

The issue of Aadhaar has been in news for at least five years now. Recently, it  surfaced in the vernacular media in Haryana. There are regular reports of old people lining up in serpentine queues for Aadhaar registration and the mismanagement thereof. Present rush for Aadhaar registration started when there was news about it being made mandatory for old age pension. While The Tribune has covered the pros and cons of Aadhaar extensively, certain dimensions still remain vague about the need to have this card. Discussion on some of these ‘revelations’, based mainly on the official UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) documents, specifically “UIDAI Strategic Overview” and the Bill introduced in the Rajya Sabha to provide Aadhaar a legal cover, will hopefully throw some more light on the ongoing debate. 

The objections 

The Standing Parliamentary Committee led by Yashwant Sinha of BJP in December 2011, ‘categorically’ rejected the draft National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010. This is the Bill that was introduced to provide legal framework to Aadhaar, much after the scheme was formally launched. Yashwant Sinha Committee rejected the Bill on various grounds. Some of these were: legal grounds since the process was initiated without parliamentary approval or legal framework in place, coverage of non-citizens, no clarity of purpose, collection of biometric information even under NPR (National Population Register) has no legal basis, and the Committee felt the need for multiple cards will not be overcome by Aadhaar. Then, there was threat of fraud, problem of failure to enroll and authenticate, differences within the government, problem of correct identification of beneficiaries, lack of support by international experience of such cards, privacy concerns, lack of feasibility and cost analysis were the other objections. It was also felt that citizens may have to pay for services which are free so far, unreliability of technology, risk to national security on account of procedures adopted and use of private agencies in enrolment.

 Proposed “National Identification Authority of India”, which is presently known as Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) will only be issuing a unique number, which is given the brand name of Aadhaar. This central authority will not be issuing any card. However, authorised agencies called “Registrars” which undertake initial registration can issue such cards and they will be free to decide what information to include in the card. Moreover, these registrars, which can be private agencies, are free to collect (and retain) additional information beyond what is required for issuance of Aadhaar numbers. Moreover, while enrolment is free, neither issuance of card nor the use of authentication services (beyond the very basic) is free. There can be various types of authentications with different degrees of reliability (“low to medium reliability”). Illustrative rate for authentication of address is Rs 5 and that of biometric information  Rs 10. This is the amount the authority may charge the agency seeking authentication. Person being identified may end up paying much more to service providers like banks. 

Is it really unique?  

All adults will be required to resubmit their biometric information, say,  every 10 years or sooner, if their demographic or biometric information changes. Children will have to resubmit their biometric information every five years till the age of 18. Till the age of 18, one of their parents will also have to submit their biometric data for identification of children. This means that whenever children have to submit their biometric information, one of their parents or guardian will also have to be physically present to submit their biometric data. The need for resubmission of biometric information clearly indicates that biometric information is neither permanent nor unique.

UIDAI will only establish that a person presenting a certain finger print has the same name that he/she claims to be and nothing more. This does not make driving licenses and employee identification cards irrelevant. These multiple cards, which are indicative of specific entitlements, will continue to be in use till all police personnel and other such service delivery points are equipped with biometric readers and all data of specific entitlements is available online. Till that happens, one will have to carry multiple cards. There is no escape from it, as the Yaswant Sinha Committee report notes. As regards address proof, RBI has already allowed banks to collect latest address proof along with Aadhaar. 

So, what purpose will Aadhaar serve? First and foremost, it can check duplication, i.e., one person enroling for PDS more than once can be checked. This too will be possible only if enrolment is mandatory. Unless it is mandatory, even duplication cannot be checked. Presently, at least formally it is voluntary and hence even such duplication cannot be checked. But significant amount of de-duplication has been done in case of LPG cards even without the use of biometric information. And hence even for the limited purpose of de-duplication, it is not essential. Moreover, Adhaar cannot ensure that a non-eligible person does not get a BPL card and the really poor person gets it. This is officially admitted.

A different tone from judiciary 

As regards the other acclaimed benefit of providing identity to less poor people, this depends on enrolment procedure. Initially enrolment procedures were quite flexible and enrolment of those without any identity proof was facilitated. But after it was noticed that this could enable illegal entrants to get Aadhaar card, the procedure has been modified. The Supreme Court judgment in 2013 made mandatory requirement for Aadhar card illegal, this came in response of objections raised by several stakeholders.  So, to what extent presently Aadhaar less people will be given an identity or not, will depend on enrolment procedures. If simple, people friendly procedures are adopted, the way people get ration card or voter card, they will get Aadhaar too. It will depend on enrolment procedures adopted.

To help cash transfers

What Aadhaar can certainly help do (only if it is mandatory and not otherwise) is to facilitate replacement of provision of free or subsidised services, with cash transfers. Such cash transfers will certainly be cheaper for government to administer, but whether it will be in social interest is another issue. Usefulness of Aadhaar crucially depends on this question as officially cash transfers is considered to be the major plus point of the project. 

Most importantly, it will facilitate monitoring of population. As use of Aadhaar cards becomes common, it will be possible to monitor where one goes, whom one meets and what one buys (not all the time but often). While UIDAI will not directly collect all this information, if Aadhaar number is used in more and more spheres of life, it will be possible to collate all this information. Every time you use your Aadhaar number, you leave behind your footprints, and UIDAI is mandated to retain record of all such verification requests. While this could be useful in some criminal cases, it would also imply you are being watched all the time as you go about your daily routine. This information could also be used by marketing agencies for target marketing and by other agencies for more sinister purposes. That such a possibility is not an imaginary and exaggerated fear, is evident from the fact that there is a provision to have an independent identity review committee which will submit annual report on usage of Aadhaar numbers. Moreover, there is an explicit reference to data sharing in revenue model of UIDAI and clubbing together of online data bases (the then Home minister referred to 21 different types of data being brought together).

Lastly, it is largely an untested technology. Nowhere in the world, such a system has been used on such a scale, is officially recognised. Social security number of the USA is not an equivalent. As a technology, it is based on probabilistic decision making (hence multiple type of biometric information is being collected). So, there is a possibility of false match as well as false mismatch, i.e., system may accept someone else’s data as yours as well as reject your own finger print. All these are not imaginary fears but are well- known facts and have been confirmed in a pilot study conducted for the Authority.  Moreover, it is well established that it is possible to fake finger prints using artificial material and the machine would not know the difference. In other instances, capture of biometric information may not be possible leading to ‘failure to enrol’ error. 

Cost and benefits 

Then, there is the question of cost. As per the statement of UIDAI chairperson, published in The Tribune, there are no estimates of setting up and maintaining such a system, where each new enrolment has to be matched with all the existing data sets, which in the case of India would be more than 120 crores. He only hoped that benefits will be more than the cost. Given its unreliability, its cost, concerns about data safety and security (in USA a Task Force on Identity Theft had to be constituted in 2007 even without Aadhaar like scheme), its potential for misuse, limited benefits and availability of cheaper technologies, for example many countries like Britain, USA and Australia have decided to scrap such proposals. 

Initiating the project first and then putting in place a legal framework, appears to be a device to pre-empt informed debate and decision making. At some stage, it will be argued that scrapping the scheme ‘at this stage’ would mean money already spent going down the drain. 

Aadhaar enrolment process must be put on hold at once and should not be insisted upon for any service. Aadhaar enrolment must continue only after it has received parliamentary approval, which, in turn is preceded by informed debate. For that draft of the Bill and other technical reports must be made available on the internet in Hindi and other regional languages so that common men and women can make up their mind about it. This is not to say that there is no need for multipurpose ID card or IT should not be used in service delivery. Perhaps existing voter ID cards, which a large population already owns, can be suitably updated and modified to serve this purpose.

The writer is former Professor, Dept of Economics, M D University, Rohtak.