Skip to main content

Citizens and experts warn against aadhaar-voter ID linkage, call it threat to democracy

By A Representative 
Over 150 concerned citizens, academics, former bureaucrats, lawyers, journalists, and activists have strongly opposed the move to link Aadhaar with voter IDs, calling it a grave threat to electoral integrity, democratic participation, and fundamental rights. In a statement endorsed by groups including Rethink Aadhaar, Article 21 Trust, Jan Hastakshep, and individuals like economists Jayati Ghosh, Reetika Khera, and former chief secretary Sharad Behar, the signatories denounced what they describe as the government's coercive push to make Aadhaar submission effectively mandatory for voters.
The controversy stems from the Election Commission of India’s recent directive requiring those who decline to link their Aadhaar with their voter ID to justify their decision in person before the Electoral Registration Officer. Critics argue that this violates the ECI’s 2023 commitment before the Supreme Court that such linkage would be voluntary. The signatories assert that the right to vote must not be contingent upon submission of biometric data or the Aadhaar number, especially when the UIDAI itself does not verify nationality and Aadhaar is given to anyone residing in India for 182 days.
The statement expresses particular concern over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision process ahead of the Bihar elections, warning that inadequate notice and procedural safeguards could disenfranchise vulnerable voters. It highlights previous mass deletions—such as in the 2018 Telangana elections, where over 55 lakh voters were reportedly deleted due to Aadhaar mismatches—as evidence of the systemic exclusion such linkages cause. The failed NERPAP initiative in 2015 is cited as another example of Aadhaar-voter linkage being tried and rejected.
Criticism also centers on the technical and legal flaws of the Aadhaar database. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s 2022 report exposed severe issues such as duplicate and fraudulent Aadhaar numbers, unreliable biometric verification, and lack of nationality confirmation. The statement points out that Aadhaar data is more error-prone than voter IDs, with the risk of wrongful deletions now looming over electoral rolls just as it has plagued welfare schemes like PDS and MGNREGA.
Moreover, the proposal is seen as enabling mass surveillance and political profiling without the protection of a functional data privacy law. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, remains largely unimplemented and, according to the signatories, offers wide-ranging exemptions to the government, increasing the risk of data misuse. The Madras High Court has already raised alarms about the abuse of Aadhaar data in electoral contexts, such as in Puducherry.
Calling the proposal unconstitutional, the signatories argue that it contravenes the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which limited Aadhaar’s use to welfare schemes funded through the Consolidated Fund of India. Making voting contingent upon Aadhaar, they claim, undermines citizens’ rights to privacy, equality, and democratic participation.
The statement urges the Election Commission to immediately withdraw the Aadhaar-voter ID linkage proposal. It demands a revision of Form 6B to ensure an explicit, meaningful opt-out choice; reinstatement of robust, door-to-door verification methods; social audits to strengthen voter roll transparency; and the adoption of non-biometric alternatives for identity verification.
“The right to vote is not a privilege granted by the state,” the statement declares. “It is a right that must be protected from coercion, surveillance, and exclusion.” The signatories insist that the Election Commission must fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect electoral rights and not erode them under administrative pressure or technological compulsion.
The statement has been endorsed by a wide cross-section of Indian society including activists, researchers, teachers, retired officials, and citizens from across the country and abroad.

Comments

TRENDING

To Sonam Wangchuk: 'Will undertake 70 hour solidarity fast in Gujarat'

By Martin Macwan *  Dear Colleague Sonam Wangchuk, I have never met you personally. I wrote a short article at the time of your arrest. Your work correctly introduces you. There is truth in your words. You have embarked on a fast, following the footsteps of Gandhiji. Your intention is to make people think. Your demand is reasonable; I believe that the resignation of a single education minister will not improve the state of education in India. However, the question you have raised is extremely important for the future generation of the marginalized. Education is the key to power, development, and progress, which empowers a citizen.

US civil society coalition slams Hudson Institute for hosting RSS leaders

By A Representative   The Hudson Institute ’s “New India Conference,” held on April 23, featured senior figures from India’s ruling political ecosystem, including RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale and BJP foreign affairs head Vijay Chauthaiwale . The event also included U.S. officials and former diplomats such as Kurt Campbell, Kenneth Juster, and Nisha Biswal, alongside India’s Ambassador to the U.S., Vinay Kwatra.  

Remembering Rampur ka Tiraha: State violence and the birth of Uttarakhand’s struggle

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  In the turbulent political landscape of the early 1990s, India witnessed events that reshaped its social and regional equations. After the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992, Uttar Pradesh politics shifted dramatically, bringing the Samajwadi Party–Bahujan Samaj Party coalition to power in 1993 under Mulayam Singh Yadav. But the partnership was uneasy. Mulayam was never entirely comfortable playing the “Mandal card.” While Kanshi Ram and the BSP had consistently demanded the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations, Mulayam hesitated, wary of how the move might play out.