Aadhaar was introduced by the Indian government as a revolutionary way to establish a verifiable identity and streamline the delivery of public benefits to those most in need. By using biometrics, it aimed to eliminate “ghost” beneficiaries and reduce leakage in the welfare system. However, when a single identity number becomes the primary key to essential services, the conversation shifts from one of administrative convenience to one of power dynamics and digital slavery. The core concern is no longer just about efficiency, but about who controls the access point, what happens when the system fails, and whether a citizen can meaningfully refuse participation without facing severe social or economic consequences.
For Generation Z, this issue reaches deep into the foundations of their transition into adult life. Young people increasingly encounter digital panopticon as a prerequisite for education, employment, opening a bank account, accessing healthcare, securing housing, and interacting with government agencies. If Aadhaar becomes the default, unspoken gateway across these diverse settings, a technical identifier can acquire influence over life opportunities far beyond its original intended purpose. The risk is that an identity number ceases to be a tool for the citizen and instead becomes a leash that the state or private entities can use to gatekeep the basic requirements of modern existence.
The danger lies in what extensive linkage makes possible in the future: a world where thousands of disparate records are tied to a single identity, where life-altering decisions are made through automated biometric checks, and where there are fewer and fewer practical ways to correct an error or opt out of the system entirely. These systemic risks deserve intense scrutiny and preventative action before the infrastructure becomes so deeply embedded that it is impossible to unwind.
The threat is not always found in the obvious version of a “surveillance state” with constant monitoring. More often, the danger manifests as an ordinary administrative failure: a student whose records do not match, a job seeker whose biometric check fails, or a service provider who insists on an Aadhaar link that is not legally required. When essential services depend on a digital verification system, the burden of a technical error falls squarely on the individual. In these moments, a computer glitch is not just a nuisance; it becomes a wall that prevents a person from accessing their legal rights or basic needs.
The Supreme Court’s 2018 Aadhaar judgment attempted to balance state interest with individual privacy by upholding the law while limiting some of its uses. It allowed Aadhaar to be required for certain government subsidies and benefits to prevent fraud, but it explicitly rejected the compulsory use of the ID in several other contexts, including private services like obtaining a mobile phone connection or opening a bank account. While the Court held that eligible people should not lose entitlements merely because biometric authentication fails, critics argue these limits are always ignored in practice, leaving citizens with a choice between their privacy and their survival.
The delivery of welfare services provides a stark example of why these safeguards cannot remain theoretical. Various reports have documented cases in which Aadhaar-related linkage or authentication problems disrupted access to essential rations for the poor. While these reports do not establish that every single beneficiary is being denied food, they demonstrate how a digital failure in a centralized system can have consequences far more serious than a failed password reset. For someone living in extreme poverty, a biometric mismatch is not a technical bug; it is a direct threat to their food security.
Future generations may face an even more deeply connected digital environment, where identity systems are seamlessly combined with financial databases, digital payment tools, social media platforms, and automated eligibility decisions. It also enables a level of profiling and behavioral tracking that was previously impossible. The fear is that a permanent, unchangeable digital identity could make it nearly impossible for a person to escape an inaccurate record or a past mistake, effectively locking them into a digital caste system.
The phrase “digital slavery” captures the visceral fear that people may be forced to trade their fundamental privacy and autonomy for the sake of basic necessities. The term should be treated as a warning about the establishment of a digital panopticon that is happening right in front of our eyes. Precision strengthens the argument against the system: by focusing on coercive conditions, unlawful demands, authentication failures, data breaches, and the lack of effective appeal processes, advocates can build a case based on verifiable evidence.
Abolishing Aadhaar should be the primary goal for Generation Z who believe that such a centralized, biometric-linked system is fundamentally incompatible with human rights and democratic autonomy. However, any movement toward abolition must be carefully planned to ensure that people do not lose access to rations, pensions, healthcare, or banking during the transition. The goal is to dismantle the system of control without dismantling the support systems that the most vulnerable depend on, ensuring that a new, rights-respecting identity framework is ready to take its place.
First, young people can organize around a clear, unified demand for the scrapping of Aadhaar, while simultaneously insisting on a rights-protecting transition period. This means demanding a guarantee that there will be no interruption of benefits, no forced biometric checks during the phase-out, and no denial of service for those who refuse to use the system. Campaigns are far more powerful when they are inclusive, bringing together affected ration beneficiaries, students, workers, disability rights groups, and independent legal researchers to show that the desire for digital autonomy spans all levels of society.
Second, individuals can take a proactive approach by documenting and challenging specific, illegal Aadhaar demands in their daily lives. This involves keeping meticulous records of notices, receipts, error messages, and written refusals from institutions, and then formally asking those institutions to identify the exact legal basis for requiring an Aadhaar number. By reporting these incidents to rights organizations and using official grievance channels, citizens can create a public paper trail of coercion that can be used in courts to force institutions to comply with existing legal limits.
Third, advocates must press for the institutionalization of non-digital and non-biometric routes to all essential services. This includes demanding the return of in-person verification, the acceptance of alternate identity documents, the maintenance of paper records, and the establishment of prompt human review for all denied claims. No citizen should be deprived of food, healthcare, or education because of a failed biometric match or a database discrepancy. To ensure this, there must be independent, third-party audits that measure actual wrongful denials rather than just reporting the number of successful transactions.
Fourth, protecting human rights in the broader cyberspace requires measures that go far beyond the removal of a single ID card. India requires robust, enforceable limits on data collection, strict purpose-specific use policies, short mandatory data retention periods, and mandatory breach reporting. While the DPDP Act and its accompanying Rules are being implemented, it is crucial for civil society and the youth to scrutinize these laws to ensure they provide genuine protections rather than just legal cover for state and corporate data harvesting.
Finally, Generation Z and those who follow must defend the simple, fundamental principle that public services must serve people, not make people dependent on a digital credential. This requires a cultural shift toward demanding transparency from governments, supporting independent journalism, and building broad coalitions across political divides. Scrapping Aadhaar may be the first strategic step, but the larger objective is to build a digital society where identity systems are minimal, transparent, contestable, and never used as a condition for the preservation of human dignity.