On the eve of Human Rights Day (10th December), more than 50 organisations and over 200 prominent individuals from across India have issued a sharply worded international warning against adopting Aadhaar-style biometric identity systems, urging governments worldwide not to be swayed by what they call a 'propaganda-driven model' that has caused widespread exclusion, surveillance risks and governance failures in India.
The collective statement, titled 'Beware of Aadhaar', cautions that global institutions—including the World Bank’s identification for development (ID4D) initiative and influential voices promoting national ID programmes may be overlooking the lived experience of millions of Indians whose rights, welfare benefits and daily lives have been disrupted by Aadhaar-linked processes.
It says, "The promoters of Aadhaar were never able to justify this particular identity model or to explain what ills it is supposed to remedy. Instead, they relied on propaganda to push for it. Many countries have functional identity systems that are less coercive, invasive, exclusionary and unreliable than Aadhaar. We urge the greatest caution from countries that are considering a replication of the Aadhaar model."
At every step, the Aadhaar project has been a law unto itself, the civil society groups say. "It began without any legal backing. Later, the Aadhaar Act was passed by bypassing the upper house of Parliament. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) often violates orders of the Supreme Court of India (e.g., protections for children and against use by private entities). It has enormous power and regularly issues rules that make life difficult for millions, without any serious feedback from affected people. A critical provision for parliamentary oversight of UIDAI was dropped in the final version of the Aadhaar Act."
According to the warning, the timing is significant: several African countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda, have been exploring Aadhaar-inspired digital ID systems and UK has recently seen renewed national ID debates—reportedly influenced by political engagements, including Labour leader Keir Starmer’s meeting with Nandan Nilekani during his India visit.
Against this backdrop, the signatories have sought to counter what they describe as a 'global evangelism' around Aadhaar, calling it a fundamentally flawed identity model that should not be replicated elsewhere. The statement draws on 15 years of ground-level evidence, arguing that Aadhaar’s image as a technological and governance success has been constructed internationally, despite severe domestic consequences.
The concerns raised in the joint document focus on structural risks, governance failures and the lived experiences of marginalised groups. "Central to the critique is the creation of a massive centralised database containing biometrics and demographic details, which, the groups argue, creates unprecedented possibilities for profiling, surveillance and social control—especially in the hands of an authoritarian state. Aadhaar’s rapid spread across welfare, banking, telecom, and voter databases, they say, has resulted in “function creep” that citizens cannot opt out of."
The signatories highlight recurring issues such as biometric authentication failures—particularly affecting the elderly and manual workers—errors in demographic data and the near-impossibility of correcting Aadhaar entries once recorded. Poor rural and urban households, they say, often endure long queues at Aadhaar centres, multiple failed attempts to update or retrieve their numbers and loss of access to essential benefits including food rations, pensions and wages under schemes like NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act).
“The idea that Aadhaar has solved corruption or improved welfare delivery is pure myth,” the statement argues, pointing out that Aadhaar has introduced new layers of opacity by consolidating data, weakening transparency and increasing vulnerability to identity fraud.
"Instead of simplifying welfare access, the system has created new administrative burdens for both citizens and frontline functionaries, consuming time, resources and public money," it says.
In sharp criticism of the governance framework, the organisations underline that Aadhaar was introduced without legal backing and later pushed through the Indian Parliament as a Money Bill, bypassing crucial debate. They accuse UIDAI of repeatedly violating Supreme Court restrictions—especially around children’s data and private-sector use—and warn that the powerful agency has virtually no meaningful oversight, with parliamentary scrutiny provisions removed in the final legislation.
The collective also points to emerging international concerns around digital identity systems that centralise biometric and demographic databases, arguing that several countries already operate more functional and less intrusive ID mechanisms. The statement notes that Aadhaar’s promoters have failed to justify why such an invasive architecture is necessary in the first place, or what specific governance failures it is intended to fix.
The signatories urged governments considering national ID reforms to conduct independent assessments, examine real-life experiences rather than promotional narratives and avoid Aadhaar-like models without robust safeguards. They also offered to facilitate field visits for international bodies, policymakers and researchers interested in understanding the challenges first-hand.
The statement is endorsed by a wide range of civil society groups, including women’s organisations, labour unions, Dalit and Adivasi rights groups, digital rights advocates, disability rights networks, RTI activists, NREGA worker groups, economic researchers and human rights organisations. Prominent signatories include former judges, senior academics, public health experts, journalists, constitutional lawyers, writers and social activists such as justice AP Shah, Aruna Roy, Jayati Ghosh, Usha Ramanathan, P Sainath and Bezwada Wilson.
Together, they argue that India’s 15-year experiment with Aadhaar offers an urgent cautionary tale to the world: a digital identity system that was marketed as voluntary, efficient and modern has instead become mandatory, exclusionary and prone to systemic failures—undermining fundamental rights while enabling unprecedented centralisation of personal data.
Here is the warning issued by 54 civil society groups and 201 prominent citizens...
It does not speak well of Nandan Nilekani, who along with Murthy, founders of Infosys, is so averse to criticism. Does he have such a fragile ego that he looks at any criticism of the product as an attack on his personal integrity?
If Nilekani wants to be known, not like Elon Musk with a massive ego, but someone who wants to improve the lives of the millions of poor in India, then he should keep aside his resentment at the critics and help to improve Aadhar.
Yes, there was an outcry from several civil society actors and organizations, including this foundation, Nilekani should not take it as an attack on his personal integrity, but in the spirit that these individuals and organizations were concerned about the fate of these millions of poor people who have nowhere to turn to when they lose rations, etc.
Mr Nilekani, can you show that you are a Big Dog and keep aside the hurt and anger, and help India's poor?