Help That Comes With A Watchful Eye

In modern welfare states, benefits are no longer withdrawn openly, they are filtered silently.

Introduction

Welfare schemes are an inseparable part of the Indian political and social arena. Under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), the state is obligated to ensure social justice, equality and protect the right of livelihood and public assistance. In every election season, the concept of welfare resurfaces not as a constitutional duty, but as a moral indictment labeled as ‘freebies’ rather than a fundamental right.  Free rations, scholarships, subsidies are not novel concepts, rather, they have been part and parcel of our politics for decades. India’s constitutional architecture does not hope for a minimalist state, instead, it envisions a transformative republic committed to social and economic justice.  India now ranks second in the number of social protection beneficiaries, with over 94 crore people covered by at least one legislatively backed, cash based active schemes, according to International Labor Organization (ILO).[1] The question related to the existence of the welfare schemes is not important, but the primary concern is that who ultimately controls the access to it.

Digitalisation Of Welfare: From Delivery To Monitoring

For the management of welfare delivery, State increasingly turned to technologies. Digitalization of welfare schemes was designed to ensure universal access and maximum coverage. Linking welfare schemes to Aadhar, bank accounts, and digital databases was done to ensure efficiency, transparency and direct benefit transfer without intermediaries. However, over time, the digitalization of welfare schemes has turned into a process of perpetual verification. Welfare is not charity; it is a non- negotiable right under our Constitution. Yet, this digital transfer risks reducing citizens to data points, trapped in a cycle of endless authentication. The focus on the verification shifts the burden of proof from State to the citizens.  In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhar for welfare purposes, recognizing the State’s ultimate goal of ensuring targeted delivery. [2] Court also held that denial of benefits due to authentication failure would be unconstitutional. The digitalization of welfare schemes negatively affects the most vulnerable groups. At the village level, findings indicate that exclusion has occurred due to the relevant department's failure to process ration card applications in a timely manner. For instance, the FPS dealer in Kohima village, which has 351 registered beneficiaries, reported that four or five individuals have been excluded from the locality. This group includes married women and never-married men whose names were removed from their family ration cards upon marriage or when they moved out of their primary household.[3]

Structural Concerns In The Technology- Driven Welfare Systems

The digitalization of welfare schemes has been presented as a reform aimed at improving the efficiency and management. On paper, this shift appears practical and substantial and the performance is displayed through quantifiable indicators. However, the legal and constitutional concerns arise when governance become excessively reliant on the digital dashboards rather than lived reality. These statistics display database performance over ground - level realities. A welfare dashboard may reflect that the subsidy has been transferred, but in reality there is no guarantee that the beneficiary has actually received the same. Technical glitches, authentication failures and corrupt local administrative officials, remain latent within centralized monitoring system. These databases acts as an image management tool and tend to maintain political credibility to remain in power.

Government cannot withdraw freebies because its political cost is too high due to electoral consequences and constitutional obligations. However, access can be stiffened through complex procedural and technological requirements. These exclusions operate subtly, making them less visible and less contestable. The deployment of Aadhar linked delivery systems has turned welfare administration into a technocratic model of governance where the biometric verification acts as a digital filter that can marginalize access to statutory rights. For instance, in Garhwa district (Jharkhand), at least 45 tribal families were unable to access their monthly ration entitlements for over a year due to repeated failures of biometric authentication at digital points of sale, leaving them without essential food supplies until other arrangements were made by authorities. [1] This political strategy violates Article 14 by establishing unjust classification between citizens who successfully authenticate and those who fail to do so due to technical friction and it creates a digital divide, where age, manual labor, or infrastructure deficits lead to arbitrary denial of fundamental entitlements. [2]

There is a double standard in how the government keeps a check on money. People seeking welfare have to prove their identity whereas this strict surveillance is not required for companies receiving subsidies or wealthy people claiming tax deductions. An unsuccessful finger input can result in the denial of the food grains or a mismatch in signature or any other digital data can block the pension. The eligibility of vulnerable groups is constantly re-checked. On the other hand, the corporations and the wealthier section of the society, do not have to provide any data regarding the receival of subsidies and tax deductions. This class division is not explicit in statutory language instead it is embedded in the administrative framework. We shouldn’t have a magnifying glass for the poor and a blindfold for the powerful. Constitutional morality calls for conformity in accountability in the administration. Technology is deemed to serve equality and not stratify it. A democratic republic faithful to its constitutional values cannot base trust based on wealth.

Mitigating Digital Exclusion

The solution does not lie in abandoning the technology itself but in restructuring it through constitutional principles. The State must shift its focus from downward suspicion to upward accountability. Instead of putting the entire burden of proof on the beneficiaries, the government should focus on tracking systematic exclusion. Whenever there is an authentication failure it should trigger a review mechanism.

Biometric authentication should never become rigid in a manner that results in the denial of the welfare delivery systems. Accordingly, offline and alternative verification methods must be legally guaranteed. The underlying principle must be very simple that the failure of the technology shouldn’t result in the withdrawal of rights. Essential welfare schemes signal the right to life and dignity, they cannot be subdued because of technical breakdowns.

Grievance redressal mechanisms must be strengthened and user-friendly. A rights-based framework must be accessible, time-sensitive, segregated complaint mechanisms. The vulnerable groups must not be forced to rely solely on digital portals. There should be an appropriate on-site grievance alternative. There shouldn’t be unnecessary re-verifications, once the eligibility of the person has been confirmed. State should bear the responsibility of rectification of the digital exclusion. Each scheme must mention the necessity and scope of data collection in the statutory framework.

 A constitutional welfare state cannot treat its poorest citizens as suspects. As B.R. Ambedkar reminded us, “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of its social democracy.” If digital governance consumes dignity in the name of efficiency and transparency, it risks hollowing out that social democracy itself.

---

This blog has been authored by Mehak Tripathi and Sristi Kumari, students at Dharmarashtra National Law University, Jabalpur,

---

REFERENCES

[1] TOI Business Desk, ‘Welfare leap: India’s social security net surge to 64% in 10 years; placed second in ILO ranking with 94 crore beneficiaries’ The Times of India (New Delhi, 11 June 2025) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/welfare-leap-indias-social-security-net-surge-to-64-in-10-years-placed-second-in-ilo-ranking-with-94-crore-beneficiaries/articleshow/121776353.cms accessed 10 February,

[2] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (Aadhaar) (2019) 1 SCC 1.

[3] O. Grace Ngullie, Examining exclusions in the Public Distribution System A policy ethics perspective on ensuring the right to food, Indian Public Policy Review, vol. 6, 2025,pp 132, https://share.google/rDVhXUhRp3U1WZMCu 

[4] The Times of India, ‘Failure of biometric authentication blocks ration access for 45 tribal families in Garhwa’(11 February 2026) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/failure-of-biometric-authentication-blocks-ration-access-for-45-tribal-families-in-garhwa/articleshow/118154736.cms?  

[5] Constitution of India, Art. 14.