Why in news?
The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) tabled its report on the functioning of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in July 2025, sparking debates on data security and inclusion.
Background
UIDAI implements the Aadhaar programme, which assigns a 12‑digit identification number linked to biometric and demographic data. Aadhaar aims to simplify service delivery and reduce leakages but has faced criticism over privacy and exclusion.
Findings of the PAC
- Authentication failures: Many beneficiaries of welfare schemes, particularly senior citizens and manual labourers, experienced failures in fingerprint or iris authentication, leading to denial of rations and pensions.
- Data security breaches: Instances of unauthorised access and large‑scale data leaks were reported. The committee noted that UIDAI lacked robust protocols to prevent misuse.
- Duplicate and ghost IDs: The database contains duplicate entries and numbers issued to deceased persons or individuals without proof of existence. There is no systematic process to remove such records.
- Weak grievance redressal: Complaints about errors and delays often go unresolved for months. Portability for migrant workers remains limited.
- Citizenship confusion: Aadhaar was frequently mistaken as proof of citizenship, although the law states it only establishes identity.
Recommendations
- Conduct a scientific audit to clean the database by removing duplicates and deactivating numbers of deceased persons.
- Simplify enrolment and update processes, offering alternative methods for those with worn fingerprints or disabilities.
- Strengthen cyber‑security measures, adopt privacy by design, and ensure independent audits of data protection.
- Establish responsive grievance redressal mechanisms with fixed timelines and community outreach.
- Clarify that Aadhaar is not a citizenship document and limit its mandatory use to service delivery.
Significance
The report underscores the balance between leveraging technology for inclusion and protecting individuals’ rights. Addressing the shortcomings will restore trust in digital governance.