Context

• In its March 20, 2025 issue, The Economist made a biting observation about India’s apparent obsession with assigning unique identification numbers to various segments of society, from professionals to livestock.
• While this criticism may have been humorous, it missed a crucial distinction: India’s true problem lies not in an obsession with unique IDs, but in the confusion between simple identifiers (IDs) and genuinely unique identifiers (Unique IDs).
• This conflation has resulted in serious governance issues, particularly in the domain of electoral integrity.
• A case in point is the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing efforts to link Voter ID cards with Aadhaar numbers, a move that has far-reaching implications for both the functioning and the fairness of Indian democracy.

Understanding IDs vs. Unique IDs

• The difference between an ID and a Unique ID is fundamental. An ID serves a specific function, such as granting the right to vote or drive, and is often tied to a particular role or activity.
• A Unique ID, on the other hand, is tied intrinsically to an individual and is meant to distinguish that person from all others in every context.
• Aadhaar, for instance, is a biometric-based Unique ID designed to identify individuals regardless of their role.
• The Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC), or Voter ID, however, is a functional ID designed solely to identify eligibility to vote.
• The crux of the issue lies in the ECI’s longstanding misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this difference.
• While it claimed as far back as 2008 that every Voter ID is unique, events in recent years have proven otherwise.
• The result has been large-scale voter duplication and, potentially, fraudulent voting.

The Maharashtra Election and the Exposure of a Flawed System

• The November 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections served as a watershed moment in exposing the flaws of the Indian voter ID system.
• Within a mere five months, the number of newly registered voters surged to 40 lakh, surpassing the 32 lakh new registrations over the preceding five years.
• This sudden spike raised red flags, suggesting either a large influx of fake or duplicate voter registrations.
• Investigations revealed that many individuals had managed to register in multiple constituencies, sometimes across states, and in some cases, identical Voter ID numbers were assigned to different people.
• The myth of the Voter ID’s uniqueness was thus laid bare.
• The Voter ID system, in its current form, does not guarantee either the uniqueness of the ID or the uniqueness of the voter.

Limitations of the Proposed Fix, Biometric Accuracy Through Aadhaar

• Partial Implementation: A Futile Exercise
  • However, the proposed solution is not without its limitations and risks.
  • Most significantly, the success of this initiative depends on total coverage. If only a portion of voters are linked to Aadhaar, then the system remains susceptible to manipulation.
  • Fraudsters could still exploit unlinked Voter IDs, rendering the clean-up effort futile.
  • In other words, partial linkage is practically equivalent to no linkage at all when it comes to eliminating duplicates and ensuring uniqueness.
• The Legal Paradox: Aadhaar Is Voluntary, Voting Is a Right
  • But here lies the core dilemma: Aadhaar cannot legally be made mandatory. According to Supreme Court rulings and the Aadhaar Act itself, it must remain voluntary for access to most services, including voting.
  • The court has explicitly upheld that the right to vote is a constitutional right and cannot be made conditional on possession of an Aadhaar number.
  • Therefore, while Aadhaar may be the most effective tool for de-duplication, the law prevents its compulsory adoption for electoral purposes.
  • This results in a legal contradiction between the need for universal Aadhaar linkage and the constitutional guarantee of voting rights without preconditions.
• Data Privacy and the Risk of Exclusion
  • Moreover, there are concerns about privacy and data security.
  • Linking sensitive biometric data to voter databases significantly increases the risk of misuse, surveillance, or data breaches.
  • In a country where data protection laws are still evolving, such centralisation of identity and voting information could have unintended consequences.
  • Critics also warn of voter disenfranchisement, especially among marginalised groups who are more likely to lack Aadhaar documentation or face bureaucratic hurdles in correcting errors in their Aadhaar records.
• Accountability Gaps and Trust Deficit
  • Additionally, there is no clear institutional accountability for errors in the linking process.
  • What happens if an eligible voter is wrongly excluded due to a mismatch between Aadhaar and EPIC data?
  • Without transparent redressal mechanisms and strict safeguards, such cases could erode public trust in the electoral system.
  • The fear is not just theoretical, past exercises in linking welfare services to Aadhaar have seen many citizens denied benefits due to technical or bureaucratic glitches.

The Way Forward: The Need for Democratic Safeguards

• To navigate this conundrum, robust safeguards must be put in place.
• Chief among them is the absolute assurance, under oath, from the ECI that no eligible Indian citizen will be denied their right to vote due to Aadhaar linkage issues.
• Without such guarantees, the shift towards biometric validation of voter identities risks becoming exclusionary and undemocratic.
• The analogy with the use of indelible ink, a method increasingly compromised by chemical removal, highlights how technological and procedural updates are necessary.
• But new methods must be built on transparency, reliability, and an unwavering commitment to protecting citizens' rights.

Conclusion

• India’s electoral system stands at a crossroads and the move to link Voter IDs with Aadhaar numbers reveals a deeper misunderstanding of the distinction between functional and unique identifiers.
• While the intent, to eliminate voter fraud and ensure electoral integrity, is laudable, the means must be constitutionally sound and equitably implemented.
• The Election Commission must not only correct past missteps but must also forge a path that strengthens democratic institutions without undermining the very citizens they are meant to serve.