DNA Edit: Democracy first - Defanging Aadhaar through amendment is welcome
Aadhaar has come a long way since 2017, when an amendment to the Finance Bill made it a mandatory requirement for filing income tax returns.
Democracies survive on the delicate balance of power between the ruling class and the citizens. The more power citizens get, the more robust the democracy. If this order is reversed, then obviously, democracy becomes a casualty.
The fast expanding remit of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which issues Aadhaar, had to be curtailed and the brakes have finally been applied. With the Parliament clearing an amendment bill that allows voluntary use of the unique identification number, citizens can no longer be forced to share their Aadhaar as proof of identity, for opening a bank account or for a mobile connection.
To ensure that the law is effective, the bill provides for a stiff Rs 1 crore penalty and a jail term for private companies violating provisions related to Aadhaar data. Additionally, it also gives the option to children to exit from the biometric ID programme on attaining 18 years of age.
The decision, long overdue, is expected to put an end to indiscriminate demand for Aadhaar by several agencies under the guise of Know Your Customer (KYC). The bill allows ‘offline verification’ of a person’s identity, without authentication. During offline verification, an agency must obtain the consent of the individual, inform of alternatives to sharing information, and not collect, use or store Aadhaar number or biometric information.
Aadhaar has come a long way since 2017, when an amendment to the Finance Bill made it a mandatory requirement for filing income tax returns. Since then, the flood gates opened up, with the Aadhaar card becoming the most favoured document in all official and unofficial communication.
Significantly, the authentication bar has been raised. Instead of a district court, only the high courts or the Supreme Court can allow disclosure of Aadhaar-related confidential information. Likewise, instead of a joint secretary, only a secretary-rank officer can issue directions for disclosing information in the interest of national security.