Appellant: Has the Government of India made the Aadhaar card compulsory in all schemes? - PIO: Not mandatory in direct benefit schemes; if Aadhaar number is not allotted, alternate & viable means of identification for delivery of service shall be offered
1. Shri Mahendra, the appellant, made the RTI application dated 15.10.2014 seeking information on 4 points, whether the Government of India has made Aadhaar card compulsory in all schemes, no. of individuals enrolled for Aadhaar card and time taken to cover all the residents, reasons for making aadhaar card mandatory despite the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court not to make it mandatory, then under which scheme it has been made mandatory.
2. The CPIO concerned replied that Aadhaar card was not mandatory in direct benefit schemes with respect to points 1 and 4. As regards point 2, it was informed that 70.43 crore aadhaar had been generated and on point No.3 that it was the Ministries/Departments which decide whether the delivery of the benefits and services should be linked to Aadhaar number and the extent to which the number should be used. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point No. 3 & 4 and filed the appeal before the first appellate authority. The FAA did not pass any order and hence the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been issued to him. The respondents submitted that as regards points 3 and 4, they had replied that it is the Ministries’/Departments’ decision whether the delivery of the benefits and services should to be linked to Aadhaar number and the extent to which the number should be used. The respondents further submitted that The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was notified on 26th March, 2016 and invited attention to Section 7 of the Act that provides that if an Aadhaar number is not allotted the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service.
4. In view of the above position, the Commission finds that the CPIO has appropriately dealt with the RTI application and no further direction is required on the part of Commission. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Citation: Shri Mahendra v. Unique Identification Authority of India in Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2015/001064/MP