ByGuestAuthoronJune1,2015

HowtoGetMarriedWithoutanAadhaarNumberCaravanMagazine

ByAnkitaAnand&NachiketUdupa

Fromthetimeofits inception, intheyear2009,akeyquestion

atthecentreoftheUniqueIdentification(UID)projecthasbeen

whether the12digitAadhaar number canbemademandatory,

andwhetherpeoplecanbedeniedservicesfornothavingone.

Thejudiciaryhasruledunambiguouslyonthequestion.On23September2013,theSupremeCourt,in

response to a writ petition filed by the former judge KS Puttaswamy, challenging the governments

missionofuniversalAadhaarenrolment,andoflinkingvariousbenefitschemestotheprogramme,ruled

thatnopersonshouldsufferfornotgettingtheAadhaarcard,despitethefactthatsomeauthoritieshad

issued circularsmaking itmandatory.On24March 2014, in another case, it ruled that the biometrics

collectedforAadhaararetobeconfidential,and,additionally,thatnopersonshallbedeprivedofany

service for want of Aadhaar number All the authorities are directed to modify their

forms/circulars/likessoastonotcompulsorilyrequiretheAadhaarnumber

Advertisement

Onemightpresumethat twoclearrulingsfromthehighestcourtofthelandwouldsufficetolaydown

the law across the country. And yet, when wethe writers of this piecereached the office of an

additional district magistrate (ADM) in Delhi on the morning of 20 February 2015 to submit our

marriageapplicationundertheSpecialMarriagesActof1954,wewereorderedtoprovideourAadhaar

numbers.WithoutAadhaar,wecannotprocessyourapplication,theADMsassistantsaid.

4 0 0 0 0

Wepointedoutthatsucharequirementwasnotmentionedanywhereinthelaw.Theassistantresponded

thathecouldnothelpus, since the software inwhichhehad tokey in the information to registerour

applicationwouldnotallowhimtoproceedunlessanAadhaarnumberwaskeyedinfirst.

ThiswasinclearviolationoftheSupremeCourtnoticeof2014,whichdirectedallauthoritiestomodify

theirforms/circulars/likessoastonotcompulsorilyrequiretheAadhaarnumber.Laws,itseemed,can

lose all power as they percolate through many layers of government before they reach the average

citizen.

NeitherofushadenrolledforAadhaar,buttheofficestaffinformedusthatifwedidsoimmediately,our

enrolment numbers would suffice to process the application. Though exasperated, we were keen on

gettingmarriedsoonandsochosetoenrol,decidingthatwewouldtakeupthefightlater.

Our experience at the enrolment centre further strengthened our impression that the average citizen is

armtwistedintofallingintostepwiththerequirementsoftheAadhaarprogramme.Forstarters,wewere

chargedRs100eachby theenrolmentcentre,when in fact, theprocedure is supposed tobe free.We

also found that theapplication formaskeduserswhetherwegrantedconsent for the information tobe

shared (without specifying what information would be shared, with whom, and for which purpose).

Neither of us wanted to consent to any such thing, but when we received a slip acknowledging our

enrolment,itshowedthatwehadinfactgivenconsent.Whenweaskedthepersonwhowasenrollingus

about this,his responsewas the sameas thepersonat theADMsofficethat the softwarewouldnot

allowhimtoenrolusunlessheindicatedthatweconsentedtoshareourinformation.

Wehadresignedourselvestobeingbulldozedintodoingthegovernmentsbiddingwhen,laterthatday,

wehadthegoodfortuneofmeetingtheactivistandscholarUshaRamanathan,whohasbeenopposing

whatsheseesastheflagrantwrongsoftheAadhaarproject.WhenRamanathanofferedtoaccompanyus

totheADMsofficetoargueourcase,wegladlyaccepted.

Three days later, we returned to the office to argue our case with the staff. In the course of our

discussion,weofferedthestaffasolutionthatwethoughtmightcircumventthesoftwareshiccups:that

theykeyinrandomcharactersintheboxfortheAadhaarnumber.Theassistantsmiledatusindulgently

andsaidthathehadtrieditall.HethenaskedustomeettheADMhimselfandsortoutthematter.

TheADM,who, as it turned out,was a polite and patientman, explained to us that as a government

officer, he was caught in this matter between obeying the orders of the judiciary and those of the

executive.While the formerostensibly laysdown the ruleof law, it canonlybeput inoperation, and

thustrickledowntothelayperson,bytheexecutive.AftertheSupremeCourtorders,theADMsaid,the

RevenueDepartmentofDelhishouldhavesentarounddirections tooperationalise thecourtsorder. It

hadnotdonethis.Therefore,hehadtofollowtheexistingsystem,whichmandatedtheuseofAadhaar.

With the executive ignoring the judiciarys rulings, the law remained a theoretical truth. The ADM

suggestedthattopursuethematter,wetakeupthematterattheDepartmentofRevenue.

TheDepartmentofRevenue,whichhandlesissuesofvariousstatutorydocuments,includingmarriage

certificates,hadissuedacircularinDecember2012statingthattheAadhaarplatformwouldbeusedfor

manyoftheirservices.Hence,itisconsiderednecessarythattheAadhaarinformationoftheapplicants

seeking the various certificates from theRevenueDepartment is to be given in theApplicationForms

itself,thecircularstated.(ThecertificateslistedincludedtheSC/STcertificate,OBCcertificate,domicile

certificate, incomecertificateandothers,but,curiously, themarriagecertificate isnotmentionedin the

list.)

At the office, we were directed to another official, a subdivisional magistrate (SDM) who handled

Aadhaarrelatedmatters.IftheADMhadbeenpolite,andunhelpfulonlybecausehedidnotknowhow

tohelp,thisSDMwaspointedlyrude.Wewaitedoutsidehisdoorforabouthalfanhourwithoutbeing

shownin.Finally,weinterceptedhimwhenhesteppedoutsidetheofficeonhiswayelsewhere.Who

sent you here? he asked, looking at us suspiciously.We told himwhywewere there. It cannot be

donewithoutAadhaar, he scoffed.Wepointed out that such a requirementwas against court orders.

Gofileacontemptpetitionthen,hesaid,beforestormingoff.

Aswewaited there, determined to take him up on his challenge,we received a call from theADMs

staff,askingustocomebackbecausetheyhadfiguredoutawayaroundtheproblem.Backattheoffice,

theADMtoldusthathehadspokentothelegaldepartment,thelegalcellandsomeotherADMsinother

jurisdictions.Allthislegalconsultationyieldedthefollowingadvice,whichwehadalreadysuggested:if

wewere determined to register ourmarriagewithout theAadhaar, all they had to dowas key in dots

insteadofdigitsintheboxprovided.

Theyproceededtodothis,andourapplicationwentthroughsuccessfully.Afterthiswasdone,theADM

struck up a conversation with us to find out why we were so set against the Aadhaar project. We

explained our various concerns, ranging from privacy issues to the sheer inefficacy of the system.

ActuallyIhaventenrolledmyselfeither, theADMsaid.Mywifecomplains thatIamenrollingthe

wholeworldbutnotourfamily.Headded,Imnotfullyconvincedofitsbenefits.

Ahead of the wedding date, we discovered another potential roadblock. Subsequent to our previous

rounds of the offices, theRevenueDepartment had issued a followup circular.Absurdly, the circular

attemptedtofulfiltheSCsstipulationthatnooneshouldbedeniedanyserviceforwantofanAadhaar

number,byorderingthatanyonewithoutanAadhaarshouldbetakentobeenrolledatthenearestcentre

so that they could then provide the enrolment number. The fact that this was still a form of coerced

enrolmentseemedtoescapetheauthoritiescompletely.

Byhappycoincidence,ahearingintheSupremeCourtonJusticePuttaswamyswritpetitionduringthe

earlierhearingofwhichtheinitialorderin2013wasissuedwasscheduledfor16March.Withthenew

circularinhand,Ramanathanwenttomeetthelawyerinthecase,GopalSubramaniam,toapprisehimof

thedevelopmentsinthelowerrungsofthegovernment.

Sixdayslater,atthehearing,Subramaniambeganbypointingoutthattherewaswidespreadviolationof

the courts order against mandatory Aadhaar. A lawyer who was present told us that he cited our

example: two people seeking to get married who were turned away for not having enrolled. Justice

Chelameshwar,whowasheading thespecialbenchconstitutedfor thematter,askedwhether itwasan

arranged marriage or a love marriage. Special marriage, Subramaniam responded. Chelameswar

joviallyretorted,MrSubramaniam,youshouldbepleasedthatgovernmenthasnotmandatedthatthey

needtohaveAadhaartoevenloveoneanother.Thankfully,thatisjustabouttheonlythingtheyhave

leftout,yourlordships,Subramaniamsaid.

Subsequenttothishearing,theSupremeCourtissuedanorderreinforcingitsearlierstandontheissue.

It isbroughttoournoticethat incertainquarters,Aadhaaridentificationisbeinginsisteduponbythe

various authorities, the court said. We expect that both the Union of India and States and all their

functionariesshouldadheretotheOrderpassedbythisCourton23rdSeptember,2013.

On 27March, Ramanathan visited the Revenue Department to check that there would be no further

Aadhaarrelatedhurdlestoourregisteringourmarriage.ThereshelearnedthattheSDMwhohadearlier

advised us to file contempt, had issued a note stating, All concerned are requested to ensure strict

complianceoftheordersofHonbleSupremeCourtofIndia.Anyadministrativeinstructionsinviolation

oftheorderofHonbleSupremeCourtwillhavenovalidity.Finally,theimpactofthelawseemedto

reachat leastsomeof theloweroffices.Therulinghasnotensuredcomplianceacrossallgovernment

offices,butthisonecircularrepresentsonesmallstepforward.

Andso,weweremarriedattheADMsofficewithoutanyfurthertrouble.But,inourfirstencounterwith

thesystem,wehadinfactenrolledfortheAadhaarnumber,evenifwedidntprovideitforthemarriage

application.Thus,wenowhavetwomorebattlesbeforeus.One,torevoketheconsentwewereforced

to give to have our information shared. Two,more ambitiously, to try and get ourAadhaar numbers

revoked.

ThewritersofthispiecearebasedinDelhi.Theviewsexpressedherearetheirown.

***

(c)2015,TheCaravan.Crosspostedwithpermission.

TheCaravanisIndiasfirstandonlypublicationdevotedtonarrativejournalism