HowtoGetMarriedWithoutanAadhaar

NumberCaravanMagazine
ByGuestAuthoronJune1,2015
4

ByAnkitaAnand&NachiketUdupa
Fromthetimeofitsinception,intheyear2009,akeyquestion
atthecentreoftheUniqueIdentification(UID)projecthasbeen
whether the 12digit Aadhaar number can be made mandatory,
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 circulars making it mandatory. On 24 March 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

Onemightpresumethattwoclearrulingsfromthehighestcourtofthelandwouldsufficetolaydown
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.

Wepointedoutthatsucharequirementwasnotmentionedanywhereinthelaw.Theassistantresponded
that he could not help us, since the software in which he had to key in the information to register our
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
charged Rs 100 each by the enrolment centre, when in fact, the procedure is supposed to be free. We
also found that the application form asked users whether we granted consent for the information to be
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 response was the same as the person at the ADMs officethat the software would not
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.
The ADM, who, as it turned out, was a polite and patient man, 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 former ostensibly lays down the rule of law, it can only be put in operation, and
thustrickledowntothelayperson,bytheexecutive.AftertheSupremeCourtorders,theADMsaid,the
RevenueDepartmentofDelhishouldhavesentarounddirectionstooperationalisethecourtsorder.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 the Revenue Department is to be given in the Application Forms
itself,thecircularstated.(ThecertificateslistedincludedtheSC/STcertificate,OBCcertificate,domicile
certificate,incomecertificateandothers,but,curiously,themarriagecertificateisnotmentionedinthe
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 him why we were there. It cannot be
done without Aadhaar, he scoffed. We pointed out that such a requirement was against court orders.
Gofileacontemptpetitionthen,hesaid,beforestormingoff.
As we waited there, determined to take him up on his challenge, we received a call from the ADMs
staff,askingustocomebackbecausetheyhadfiguredoutawayaroundtheproblem.Backattheoffice,
theADMtoldusthathehadspokentothelegaldepartment,thelegalcellandsomeotherADMsinother
jurisdictions.Allthislegalconsultationyieldedthefollowingadvice,whichwehadalreadysuggested:if
we were determined to register our marriage without the Aadhaar, all they had to do was 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.MywifecomplainsthatIamenrollingthe
wholeworldbutnotourfamily.Headded,Imnotfullyconvincedofitsbenefits.
Ahead of the wedding date, we discovered another potential roadblock. Subsequent to our previous
rounds of the offices, the Revenue Department 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, who was heading the special bench constituted for the matter, asked whether it was an
arranged marriage or a love marriage. Special marriage, Subramaniam responded. Chelameswar
joviallyretorted,MrSubramaniam,youshouldbepleasedthatgovernmenthasnotmandatedthatthey
needtohaveAadhaartoevenloveoneanother.Thankfully,thatisjustabouttheonlythingtheyhave
leftout,yourlordships,Subramaniamsaid.
Subsequenttothishearing,theSupremeCourtissuedanorderreinforcingitsearlierstandontheissue.
Itisbroughttoournoticethatincertainquarters,Aadhaaridentificationisbeinginsisteduponbythe
various authorities, the court said. We expect that both the Union of India and States and all their
functionariesshouldadheretotheOrderpassedbythisCourton23rdSeptember,2013.
On 27 March, 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
reachatleastsomeoftheloweroffices.Therulinghasnotensuredcompliance across all government
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 our Aadhaar numbers
revoked.
ThewritersofthispiecearebasedinDelhi.Theviewsexpressedherearetheirown.
***
(c)2015,TheCaravan.Crosspostedwithpermission.
TheCaravanisIndiasfirstandonlypublicationdevotedtonarrativejournalism