What has been described as “Aadhaar evangelism” (efforts to convert other countries to the Aadhaar biometric identity model), five civil society organisations — the Internet Freedom Foundation, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), Rethink Aadhaar, Bahutva Karnataka and the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha — have expressed concern that it is spreading across the world. UK Prime Minister’s recent description of Aadhaar as a “massive success” is a good indication, among others, that the international audience "is being misled", they said.
Warning to governments worldwide against adopting India’s Aadhaar-style biometric identity systems, in a statement they warned that the model is deeply flawed, exclusionary and a potential threat to democratic freedoms. The statement, titled “Beware of Aadhaar: A Warning on India’s Biometric Identity Model,” comes at a time when Aadhaar is being promoted internationally as a technological success story, with backing from influential global forums and political leaders.
The groups emphasise that while Aadhaar was introduced in 2009 as a voluntary system, it quickly became indispensable for accessing most social schemes and essential services, making it effectively compulsory. The system’s reliance on a centralised database containing both biometrics and demographic details, they argue, creates the possibility of large-scale profiling, surveillance and social control, especially in the hands of authoritarian governments.
The statement outlines a series of concerns, including widespread errors in demographic data, severe restrictions on correcting these errors and the resulting exclusion of millions from welfare benefits. Biometric authentication failures—particularly affecting the elderly, disabled and marginalised communities—are cited as a major cause of denial of essential services. The organisations also highlight the difficulties faced by individuals who lose their Aadhaar numbers and must undertake long, often unsuccessful journeys to retrieve them.
Further, the groups criticise the coercive “seeding” of Aadhaar across multiple databases—ration cards, bank accounts, voter rolls, pensions and others—calling it a monumental misuse of administrative time and a burden on citizens. They argue that rather than eliminating corruption, Aadhaar has introduced new vulnerabilities, including identity fraud and opaque data-sharing practices.
The functioning of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) also comes under scrutiny, with the signatories pointing out that the agency has operated with weak accountability, sweeping powers and a record of violating Supreme Court orders. They note that the Aadhaar project began without legal backing and that parliamentary oversight provisions were later diluted.
According to the organisations, Aadhaar’s promoters have failed to justify the necessity of such an intrusive model or clarify what specific problems it is meant to solve. They point out that many countries already possess far less coercive and more reliable identification systems.
Urging extreme caution from countries considering the adoption of Aadhaar-like frameworks, the signatories offer to facilitate field visits for officials and researchers who wish to examine the ground realities. They argue that Aadhaar should be understood not as an export-worthy model but as a warning about the dangers of large-scale biometric identification systems that compromise rights, transparency and access to welfare.
Comments