Premium

Opinion India needs an SIR because of Manmohan Singh government’s Aadhaar policies

The policies of the UPA government gave short shrift to both the integrity of electoral rolls and national security by diluting the citizenship requirements and replacing them with a vague, ambiguous, undefined ‘resident’.

The SIR is not just required in border states but across the country and in all states.

September 29, 2025 03:40 PM IST First published on: Sep 29, 2025 at 07:06 AM IST

The Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has taken place many times. But never before has it been more necessary. This is because of what many INDI Alliance governments have allegedly done — add illegal immigrants to the Aadhaar rolls with false identities and use that to add them to theelectoral rolls. The story of undermining Indian democracy with illegal immigrants via Aadhaar and electoral rolls needs to be placed before the people of India.

In 2002, Prime Minister A B Vajpayee and Home Minister L K Advani mooted the idea of a National Identity Card. To be clear, it was a programme that would identify citizens and non-citizens/residents. In 2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was sworn in. In 2009, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was formed with Nandan Nilekani as chairman.

From 2009 to 2012, there was no public debate or discussion on UIDAI, its charter, technology, etc. In 2010, Aadhaar was launched for all residents, with the citizenship criterion diluted. There was no attempt made to verify citizenship or distinguish between non-citizens and citizens. The same year, the Standing Committee on Finance under Yashwant Sinha objected to the definition of “residents” and the dilution of the citizenship criterion. It also objected to enrolment being carried out through private players without due diligence. The government then avoided all further calls to depose and discuss the issue in Parliament or outside.

The committee rejected the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, in its current form. It recommended that the government reconsider the UID scheme and bring forth fresh legislation. The committee also called for the government to address the key issues and initiate measures for early legislation on the subject. There were also calls for a statutory backing for Aadhaar. In 2011, UID was rebranded as Aadhaar.

In 2010, enrolment started through a network of private agencies. By 2012, UIDAI enrolment was set to cross 40 crore. With very little or absent verification, there were several reports of illegal immigrants in large numbers being enrolled into Aadhaar with fake documents, which were ignored by the Singh government.

The Union Home Ministry, under P Chidambaram, tried to assert that UIDAI should be coordinated with the National Population Register. In 2012, the Singh government overruled the Home Ministry and greenlit the “resident” UID to proceed independently. Between 2011 and 2013, the issue was raised in Parliament repeatedly. Cases of non-citizens getting Aadhaar were mounting, as were the associated security risks.

In 2013, the EC under the Singh government made the Aadhaar ID eligible proof to vote. In 2013, a PIL against Aadhaar was filed by Justice K S Puttaswamy, Mathew Thomas, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, et al. By the time the government changed hands in 2014, total enrolment had crossed 65 crore, and an estimated Rs 15-20,000 crore was spent on the project.

Amidst calls to junk Aadhaar, the Narendra Modi government decided not to waste the huge investment and proceeded to clean up Aadhaar. In 2016, the Aadhaar Act was passed, tightening the processes of enrolment and incorporating due diligence. In 2020, CAG reports confirmed that large numbers of Aadhaar enrolments were done without the required documentation and without oversight of enrolment partners between 2010 and 2016.

The CAG report of 2021 noted that “the quality of data captured to issue initial Aadhaar was not good enough to establish uniqueness of identity”. It also highlighted that “the UIDAI has not prescribed any specific proof/document or process for confirming whether an applicant has resided in India for the specified period and takes confirmation of the residential status through a casual self-declaration from the applicant. There was no system in place to check the affirmations of the applicant. As such, there is no assurance that all the Aadhaar holders in the country are ‘residents’ as defined in the Aadhaar Act… All Aadhaar numbers were not paired with the documents relating to personal information of their holders and even after nearly 10 years, the UIDAI could not identify the exact extent of mismatch.”

The policies of the UPA government gave short shrift to both the integrity of electoral rolls and national security by diluting the citizenship requirements and replacing them with a vague, ambiguous, undefined “resident”. It is clear that there has been a large-scale enrolment of illegal immigrants. Because of the policies of the Singh government, it is clear that illegal and non-Indian citizens have also made it into the electoral rolls.

It is also clear that many of these illegal immigrants who have made it to the electoral rolls are acting in concert to undermine local demographics. India’s electoral rolls have been contaminated. Election processes, national security and democracy are only as strong as our electoral rolls. The SIR is not just required in border states but across the country and in all states.

The writer is president, BJP Kerala and former minister of state, Electronics & IT, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and Jal Shakti