Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. Aadhaar card can be used as a proof of citizenship or domicile. 2. Once issued, Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the Issuing Authority. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
Explanation
The correct answer is option D – neither statement 1 nor 2 is correct.
**Statement 1 is incorrect:** The Unique Identification Authority of India was established as a central government agency with the objective of collecting the biometric and demographic data of residents, storing them in a centralised database, and issuing a 12-digit unique identity number called Aadhaar to each resident.[1] Aadhaar is explicitly a proof of residence and identity, not citizenship or domicile. The term "resident" is key here – it does not establish citizenship status or domicile rights under Indian law.
**Statement 2 is incorrect:** UIDAI deactivates the Aadhaar number of the deceased person based on validation and matching of death registration details with the database of death registering authority and Aadhaar database.[2] This clearly demonstrates that the issuing authority can indeed deactivate Aadhaar numbers. Additionally, Deactivation is temporary and cancellation is permanent. Your Aadhaar number still exists in UIDAI's database.[3] This shows that both deactivation and cancellation mechanisms exist, contrary to what statement 2 claims.
Therefore, both statements are incorrect, making option D the correct answer.
Sources- [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 780
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis question rewards 'Wallet Awareness' over bookish knowledge. Statement 1 is literally printed on the Aadhaar card itself. Statement 2 tests the 'Administrative Logic' that no government issuance is ever truly irrevocable. It is a classic example of UPSC punishing absolutist statements in governance topics.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Can an Aadhaar card be used as proof of Indian citizenship under Indian law (Aadhaar/UIDAI)?
- Statement 2: Can an Aadhaar card be used as proof of domicile under Indian law (Aadhaar/UIDAI)?
- Statement 3: Can the issuing authority (UIDAI) deactivate, cancel, or revoke an Aadhaar number after it has been issued?
- Explicitly describes Aadhaar/UIDAI as issuing a unique identity number to each 'resident', not to 'citizens'.
- Frames Aadhaar as an identity/biometric database and mapping tool for residents, implying its basis is residency rather than citizenship.
- Refers to the Aadhaar Act and its upheld validity in the context of targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services — a functional purpose rather than conferring citizenship.
- Shows judicial treatment of Aadhaar as a statutory scheme for benefits/identification, not as a mechanism to determine citizenship.
- Official program manual states Aadhaar is to be used for identity and authentication purposes when collecting beneficiary details.
- If Aadhaar's role is explicitly limited to identity/authentication in this context, that suggests it is not being represented as a standalone proof of domicile in the cited guidance.
- Guidance about Aadhaar deactivation notes Aadhaar is used for KYC at banks, telecoms and government portals — functions tied to identity verification rather than certification of domicile.
- The cited practical use (KYC/identity) supports the view that Aadhaar's primary legal/operational role shown in these passages is identity/authentication.
This snippet records an examination-style claim that 'Aadhaar card can be used as a proof of citizenship or domicile', showing that such assertions circulate and are treated as debatable topics.
A student could treat this as an example claim to verify by checking official government/state lists of acceptable domicile proofs and whether exam sources mark it correct or incorrect.
Explains that Aadhaar is issued to 'residents' after collecting biometric and demographic data—emphasising Aadhaar's role as a resident identity database rather than a citizenship document.
Combine with the legal distinction between 'resident' and 'domicile/citizen' to assess whether Aadhaar's resident-centric issuance supports or undermines its use as domicile proof in law.
Shows practical linkage of Aadhaar with land records and bank accounts to create centralized records—indicating Aadhaar is being used operationally to tie identity to place/records.
A student could infer that if administrative systems already use Aadhaar to link people to land/accounts, some authorities might accept it as address-related proof—so check specific administrative rules for domicile proof.
States the Constitution recognises 'domicile in the territory of India' as the constitutional concept, and that States may confer benefits on 'residents'—highlighting legal layers between domicile, residence, and citizenship.
Use this to distinguish 'domicile in India' (a constitutional/legal category) from state-level residency proofs; then check whether Aadhaar aligns with the category required by specific domicile rules.
Reiterates that Constitution recognises only one domicile (in India) and references case law/comments—pointing to the formal legal meaning of domicile versus administrative residency documents.
A student could combine this with the fact Aadhaar identifies 'residents' to question whether Aadhaar satisfies legal domicile requirements or only administrative residency evidence, and then review statutes/rules that list acceptable proofs.
- Explicitly states UIDAI deactivates Aadhaar numbers of deceased persons after validation with death records.
- Shows that UIDAI has the operational ability to mark an issued Aadhaar as deactivated in specific circumstances.
- Defines and distinguishes deactivation (temporary) from cancellation (permanent), indicating both actions are recognized outcomes for an Aadhaar number.
- Explains effects of deactivation on the Aadhaar record in UIDAI’s database.
- Advises reactivation rather than applying for a new Aadhaar, implying Aadhaar can be deactivated and later reactivated.
- Mentions Aadhaar cancellation can occur in cases such as duplication or fraud, indicating permanent revocation scenarios.
Contains an exam-style assertion that 'Once issued, Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the Issuing Authority', indicating this claim is discussed in study-material questions.
A student could use this as a lead to check the Aadhaar Act or official UIDAI rules to verify whether such an absolute non-revocation rule exists.
Describes UIDAI as a central agency established to collect data, store a centralised database, and issue Aadhaar numbers — showing who issues and manages the system.
Knowing UIDAI is the issuing/body, a student can look up statutory powers granted to that agency (e.g., in the Aadhaar Act) to see if deactivation/cancellation powers are included.
Mentions specific legal constraints about Aadhaar data (e.g., metadata retention limits and restrictions on state-private sharing), implying the regime has statutory rules and limits.
A student could infer that if the Aadhaar ecosystem has explicit limits on data handling, it may also have explicit provisions about lifecycle actions (deactivation/revocation) to check in the law/regulations.
Shows a pattern where the Central Government can cancel certain registrations (OCI) for defined grounds and must give a hearing, illustrating how cancellation of government-issued registrations is handled elsewhere.
A student can analogously check whether Aadhaar law contains similar grounds/procedures for cancellation or whether it differs (compare statutory texts and due-process clauses).
Notes that Aadhaar is mandatory for certain benefits, highlighting the practical consequences if an identity number were deactivated.
A student could use this to reason that if Aadhaar were revocable, statutory safeguards/transition arrangements would be necessary for beneficiaries—so they should look for such provisions in the statute or policy documents.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Statement 1 is common observation (look at your own card). Statement 2 is an extreme assertion easily debunked by administrative common sense.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Digital Public Infrastructure & Citizenship Laws (Aadhaar Act vs Citizenship Act 1955).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: 1. Aadhaar eligibility = 'Resident' (182 days in preceding 12 months), not Citizen. 2. Voter ID/Passport = Proof of Citizenship. 3. UIDAI is a Statutory Body under MeitY. 4. 'Baal Aadhaar' (Blue card) needs biometric update at age 5 and 15. 5. Deactivation grounds: Mixed biometrics, fraud, or continuous non-usage (though rules evolve).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Adopt the 'Creator-Destroyer' heuristic. In Indian administration, the authority empowered to issue a document (UIDAI) inherently possesses the power to cancel or deactivate it (General Clauses Act principle). Never assume a bureaucratic process is a one-way street.
Reference evidence identifies Aadhaar as a unique identity number issued to residents, which directly bears on whether it functions as proof of citizenship.
High-yield for UPSC: distinguishing legal categories (resident vs citizen) is critical when evaluating identity documents and entitlement rules. Questions often hinge on statutory definitions and purpose; mastering this helps answer queries about eligibility, entitlement, and documentary proof.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 780
The Aadhaar Act and judicial discussion frame Aadhaar primarily as a tool for targeted delivery of subsidies/benefits rather than a citizenship certificate.
Important for prelims and mains issues on welfare delivery, digital ID policy, and constitutional law — links to questions on privacy, statutory intent, and administrative usage of identity systems.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE (2017) > p. 641
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 780
The references include separate materials on citizenship law (citizenship acquisition/loss) alongside Aadhaar material, highlighting that citizenship is governed by distinct statutory and constitutional rules.
Useful to separate topics in answers: citizenship (Constitution/Citizenship Act) versus identity systems (UIDAI/Aadhaar Act). This prevents conflation in answers and supports precise legal analysis in mains and interviews.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 7: CITIZENSHIP > CHAPTER 7 > p. 85
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 780
References state Aadhaar issues a unique identity to residents and is used to expand banking/identification services — central to whether it can establish domicile.
High-yield for UPSC because many questions probe the legal status and limits of Aadhaar (resident v. citizen, scope of use). Understands distinction between administrative identity proofs and constitutional concepts. Helps answer Qs on identity systems, welfare delivery and linkage with services (banking, land records).
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 780
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 3: Money and Banking - Part II > 3.1 History of Indian Banking and Reforms > p. 128
References from constitutional commentary state the Constitution recognises domicile in India as a singular legal concept, relevant when asking whether Aadhaar (an administrative ID) can serve as 'domicile' proof.
Essential for UPSC aspirants since domicile has implications for state benefits, citizenship-related provisions and inter-state rights. Mastering this helps handle questions on residency vs. domicile, rights of citizens vs. residents, and interpretation of Article-related doctrines.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 7: CITIZENSHIP > CHAP. 7] 87 > p. 88
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 7: CITIZENSHIP > REFERENCES · > p. 89
Evidence notes the Supreme Court's Aadhaar-related judgment (Puttaswamy-II) upheld the Aadhaar Act — necessary background to assess lawful uses/limits of Aadhaar.
Crucial for answer-writing on constitutional law and public policy: links privacy jurisprudence, statutory validity, and permitted uses of Aadhaar. Knowing the judgment's outcome and its implications enables analysis of which official purposes Aadhaar may lawfully serve.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE (2017) > p. 641
Reference [2] describes the Unique Identification Authority of India as the central agency that collects biometric/demographic data and issues the 12‑digit Aadhaar number and stores it in a centralised database.
High-yield because questions about Aadhaar often start with the institutional role of UIDAI — knowing what UIDAI does (issue numbers, maintain database) helps frame follow-up questions on legality, data handling, and governance. This links to topics on administrative bodies, centralised databases, and identification systems; mastering it enables answering questions on scope and limits of agency functions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 780
The '182 Days' Trap: To get an Aadhaar, you must be a resident (stayed 182 days in the preceding 12 months). Contrast this with the Income Tax Act 'Resident' definition (also 182 days but different financial year logic) and Citizenship Act 'Ordinary Resident' (often 12 months or 7 years depending on context). UPSC loves swapping these timelines.
The 'Administrative Impotence' Check: Statement 2 claims the Issuing Authority *cannot* deactivate the number. This implies the authority is powerless to correct fraud, death, or errors. In any administrative system, the power to create implies the power to destroy/revoke. An option suggesting a government body is powerless is almost always wrong.
Mains GS-2 (Governance & Social Justice): The power to 'deactivate' Aadhaar links directly to 'Exclusion Errors' in welfare schemes (PDS/Ration). If an ID is deactivated without notice, it violates Principles of Natural Justice—a key argument in the Puttaswamy (Right to Privacy) judgment analysis.