The petitioner, an advocate and social activist, approached the Court in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, against the Union of India, various State Governments, Union Territories, and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) seeking structural reforms in the Aadhaar framework, after he became aware of alleged systemic weaknesses in Aadhaar enrolment that allow infiltrators to secure Aadhaar and subsequently obtain other official documents, thereby projecting themselves as lawful residents.
The principal relief sought is the imposition of a cap, restricting Aadhaar issuance primarily to children up to 6 years of age and the formulation of stringent guidelines for adolescents and adults to prevent misuse by illegal infiltrators. The reasoning behind the petitioner’s relief was that Aadhaar should function as a foundational identity created at birth/early childhood, not something that can be obtained at any stage of life. It was asserted that adults seeking Aadhaar later may include infiltrators who exploit weak verification systems. Therefore, limiting issuance to young children reduces the possibility of misuse.
The additional prayers included mandatory display boards clarifying that Aadhaar is only proof of identity and not citizenship, address, or date of birth, institutional safeguards such as undertakings for authenticity of documents and penal consequences for obtaining documents through fraudulent means.
The petitioner provided extensive data and historical references regarding illegal migration, citing parliamentary statements, government reports, and intelligence estimates indicating the presence of millions of illegal migrants in India. It also referred to demographic changes, economic implications, and cross-border migration patterns, particularly from Bangladesh and Myanmar.
The petitioner argued that while legal foreigners are issued Aadhaar with a specific endorsement, infiltrators allegedly obtain regular Aadhaar by concealing identity. This creates parity between lawful residents and unlawful entrants, undermining entitlement structures.
The petitioner asserted that such misuse of obtaining fake Aadhaar resulted in dilution of the integrity of the Aadhaar system, diversion of public resources and welfare benefits, exclusion of rightful beneficiaries, to depletion of limited resources, unemployment, demographic imbalance, and cultural disruption and violation of constitutional principles of equality, fairness, and targeted welfare delivery. It was further alleged that infiltrators secure identity documents through fraudulent means and participate in electoral processes, thereby compromising democracy.
The petitioner contended that although the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act) originally fulfilled its purpose of identity creation, its continued operation without safeguards has rendered it outdated. The petitioner challenged the Section 3, Aadhaar Act, which entitles “every resident” to Aadhaar, for being overbroad and open-ended, lacking temporal or age-based restrictions and enabling post facto identity creation rather than foundational identification.
Invoking Article 142, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to impose a ceiling on Aadhaar issuance up to the age of 6 years, with subsequent issuance subject to verification by administrative authorities such as SDM or Tehsildar. It was argued that such a measure would not prejudice citizens, as Aadhaar coverage is already nearly universal, and would effectively address infiltration concerns.
Lastly, the petitioner asserted that infiltration was a multifaceted threat affecting sovereignty, economy, democracy, and constitutional governance and the current Aadhaar framework, by failing to distinguish effectively between citizens and non-citizens, facilitated such infiltration and therefore, there was requirement for urgent judicial intervention.
[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
