Mainstream WeeklyTransfer of biometric database compromises sovereignty of nations in South Asia
The spectre of an authoritarian, vindictive, surveillance state thus continues looming large over India.
— Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Chairperson, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs in Our Living Constitution (2025), p. 97
There is no system of maintaining year wise records of deactivations. Maintaining such a database is not required under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Aadhaar (Enrolment & Update) Regulations, 2016.
— Minister of Electronics and Information Technology on February 7, 2018 in the Lok Sabha
The Government said it may hear person before deactivating the number, which means it can decide whether or not to hear someone before deactivating something as important as the aadhar number. Further, it is stated that a person is only informed post deactivation through SMS and email, thereby completely ignoring the principle of audi alteram partem i.e to hear the other side before taking a punitive action, and the difficulties faced by persons without SMS or internet services, as their aadhar numbers may be deactivated without them even knowing about it.
— Dr. Shashi Tharoor
Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar number database is beyond the control of national entities. Regulation 28 and 28A of Unique Identification Authority of India (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016 read with Section 23 (1) (g) of Aadhaar Act, 2016 provides powers and functions of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) including power for "omitting and deactivating of an Aadhaar number and information relating thereto". Section 54 (1) (l) of Aadhaar Act provides power of UIDAI to make regulations including "the manner of omitting and deactivating an Aadhaar number and information relating thereto under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 23" which also provides powers and functions of UIDAI regarding "omitting and deactivating of an Aadhaar number and information". 23A of Aadhaar Act which provides power of UIDAI to issue directions to any entity in the Aadhaar ecosystem, which is required to be complied with by the entity in the Aadhaar ecosystem to whom such direction is issued. These provisions pertains to cases requiring deactivation of Aadhaar Number. Notably, the power of UIDAI to decativate has been challenged before the Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya bench of the Calcutta High Court.
This database is a privacy invasion project, which is inherently linked to national security. It is a means of social control. It a tool for further victimization of vulnerable groups. There is a history to it. There used to be suspect identification offices in Egypt and Bengal, India after the development of biometric identification by Sir Francis Galton, an English eugenicist who supported slavery. The biometric mapping through identification is concerned with the enrolment and the filing away of the most private and incommunicable aspect of subjectivity, which consequent into the capture of the human body by the State and non-State actors for good. Till now such assault on the private human body was an exception, now it is becoming the norm. The biometric Aadhaar number is indeed a case of