In a major setback to the UPA government’s flagship Aadhaar scheme, the supreme court on Monday ruled that the Aadhaar number cannot be the sole proof for entitlement under various government schemes.

The Centre and state governments in their recent directives were planning to make the UID number compulsory for various schemes, including subsidy on LPG connection.

Monday’s order was issued by a bench of justices BS Chauhan and SA Bobde on a PIL filed by justice KS Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka high court. In the PIL, Puttaswamy contented that the scheme is infringement of fundamental rights under articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty).

Significantly, the government has claimed that the scheme is voluntary but linking the various benefits to be received has made it compulsory in nature.
In an earlier interview with Governance Now, Nilekani, chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the agency under planning commission responsible for implementing the Aadhaar scheme, had explicitly stated, “From our end the UID number will be voluntary but if a partner of ours makes it mandatory in its zone of operation – then it can do that.”

(Read the Nandan Nilekani interview here)

Besides ruling that the Centre and state governments “must not insist on Aadhar cards from citizens before providing them essential services”, the apex court also directed the central and state governments to not issue these cards to illegal immigrants.

On the issue of illegal immigrants, Nilekani had told Governance Now: “Anyone who meets the verification and residency requirements as defined by our document will get the UID number. It continues to be the responsibility of the appropriate agency to determine the eligibility for other things.”

It is learnt that the government has already invested over Rs 50,000 crore in the Aadhar scheme. However, the current crisis is of the government’s own making. Rather than taking a parliamentary route through legislation around the establishment of UIDAI, the government remained contented by issuing a government order.

The bill introduced in parliament did not see the light of the day as the parliamentary committee set up to look into it rejected the draft. There has been no effort to reintroduce the bill since.