Thousands of people left struggling for alternate documents during voter list revision amid concerns of bureaucratic bias and growing mistrust
LUCKNOW — The Uttar Pradesh government’s recent order rejecting the Aadhaar card as valid proof of date of birth for government jobs, admissions, and welfare schemes has triggered widespread confusion and hardship, particularly among Muslims and economically weak citizens who often lack alternative documents.
Officials insist that the change is meant to prevent discrepancies in government records. However, critics argue that the timing and nature of the order are causing unnecessary troubles and raising doubts about the intent behind such a move.
The decision was issued by Amit Singh Bansal, Special Secretary of the Planning Department. The order states that the date of birth on the Aadhaar card does not rely on any verified government document and, therefore, cannot be used as legal proof. Only birth certificates, high school mark sheets, and other officially recognised records will be accepted.
This directive arrives at a crucial moment as Uttar Pradesh is conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its voter lists. The deadline for submitting forms is 4 December 2025, and many residents are struggling to find alternative documents to retain or add their names.
Muslim families say they have been hit the hardest. In many minority localities, birth certificates were rarely issued before the 1990s, and students relied on Aadhaar for school admissions, scholarships, and ID verification.
Mohammad Rashid, a resident of Moradabad, expressed his frustration, saying, “My entire family has Aadhaar cards. We used them for everything. Now the government is saying they are useless for age proof. How are poor Muslims supposed to arrange new documents overnight?”
Community workers claim the order will exclude countless voters, especially in districts where Muslims form a significant portion of the population. They believe the decision adds another bureaucratic barrier at a time when minorities already feel targeted.
Advocate Shaila Siddiqui, who handles documentation-related cases, said, “This order may look technical, but its impact is political. Most Muslims do not have birth certificates due to decades of negligence by the system. Now they are being punished for the government’s own failures.”
Some see a deliberate attempt to tamper with voter demographics. A senior activist in Aligarh remarked, “Whenever elections come close, rules change. Why does every decision end up troubling Muslims? The government must answer.”
Meanwhile, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has defended Aadhaar’s reliability in other areas. It announced that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has already deactivated Aadhaar numbers belonging to over two crore deceased individuals to prevent misuse. The ministry confirmed that Aadhaar numbers will never be reassigned once issued.
The UIDAI also launched a portal, “My Aadhaar,” to help families deactivate Aadhaar numbers of deceased relatives. This service is currently operational in 25 states and union territories.
Despite these measures, citizens are now confused by the conflicting stance: Aadhaar remains valid for identity verification, but not for age proof. For many, this distinction is unclear and adds another bureaucratic maze to navigate.
Parents fear that their children will lose scholarships or miss school admissions. Job aspirants are stuck because recruitment portals continue to ask for Aadhaar details but reject its date of birth.
Sana Parveen, a postgraduate student from Bareilly, said, “I come from a poor Muslim family. My Aadhaar card was my only proof for age. Now I am running from office to office. The government should help us, not make our lives harder.”
Rights advocates argue that instead of simplifying processes, the administration is erecting invisible walls that affect those already struggling under identity-based suspicion.
A retired civil servant remarked, “Policies in Uttar Pradesh are no longer about governance. They look like tools to control who gets rights and who does not.”
As the voter list deadline approaches, uncertainty grows. Citizens feel the decision was taken in haste, without considering ground realities or the lives of those who have no resources to obtain new documents.
For many Muslims in Uttar Pradesh, this decision is more than paperwork. It reflects a state machinery that, in their eyes, is slowly shutting doors.
