The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has recently raised several concerns about the operations of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the government body responsible for issuing Aadhaar cards. The issues raised are part of the first performance review conducted by CAG on UIDAI spanning across a four-year period from FY2015 to FY2019.
What is UIDAI?
The UIDAI is a statutory authority established by the Government of India on July 12, 2016, under the Aadhaar Act 2016. Initially set up in January 2009 as an attached office under the Planning Commission, UIDAI now operates under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. It is mandated to assign a 12-digit unique identification (UID) number, or Aadhaar, to all residents of India. As of October 2021, UIDAI had issued over 131.68 crore Aadhaar numbers.
Insights from the CAG Audit
In its report, CAG highlighted a variety of issues with the UIDAI’s operations:
No Specific Proof of Residency: The UIDAI does not require any specific proof or document to confirm the applicant’s residency status. Instead, it accepts a self-declaration from the applicant without a system to cross-check the assertions.
Duplicate Aadhaars: The audit reported that more than 475,000 Aadhaars had to be cancelled due to duplication till November 2019. This indicates that around 145 duplicate Aadhaars were generated daily since 2010.
Poor Quality Biometric Data: The UIDAI reportedly charged individuals for updates when low-quality data was fed in during enrolment, putting the onus for quality on the resident rather than the authority.
Missing Documents: The CAG found that not all Aadhaar numbers in the UIDAI database were backed by documents containing demographic information, which cast doubts on the accuracy and completeness of the data collected before 2016.
Issuance of Bal Aadhaars: The audit criticised UIDAI for issuing Aadhaars to children under five years old without biometrics, known as Bal Aadhaars, which had incurred an additional expenditure of Rs 310 crore until March 2019.
Recommendations from the Audit
Based on its findings, CAG suggested several recommendations for UIDAI:
Procedure for Self Declaration: CAG suggested the need for a formal procedure and documentation to confirm and authenticate the residency status of applicants.
Improve Biometric Data Collection: It recommended tightening the Service Level Agreement parameters of Biometric Service Providers, and developing mechanisms to capture unique biometric data more effectively.
Alternate Biometric Identity for Minors: UIDAI should explore alternate ways to verify the identity of children below five years old.
Complete Missing Documentation: The authority should identify and fill in missing documents in their database at the earliest to avoid legal issues or inconvenience to Aadhaar holders.
Reconsider Charging Fees: UIDAI should review its policy of charging fees for voluntary biometric updates, as the reasons for biometric failures are often not identifiable.
Verification of Documents: Before bringing entities into the Aadhaar ecosystem, UIDAI should verify the claimed documents, infrastructure, and technological support.
Data Archival Policy: An effective data archival policy is necessary to mitigate data protection risks and reduce data storage redundancy.
UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Questions
CAG’s report has brought light into the functioning of UIDAI and its implications which can be helpful for examination aspirants. In 2018, a question was asked if Aadhaar card can be used as proof of citizenship or domicile, while in 2020, a question about the metadata storage of Aadhaar was asked. The Aadhaar platform does not serve as a proof of citizenship, but mainly aids in electronically verifying residents’ identities. Alongside this, Supreme Court rulings have also shaped how Aadhaar data is stored and shared, offering more insights to learners and exam takers alike.
