Aadhaar by Intimidation? When LPG Distributors Overstep the Law
By Gajanan Khergamker
There is a vital legal distinction between informing a citizen and coercing them through fear.
That boundary is currently being erased. Across the nation, LPG distributors are issuing uniform alerts instructing consumers to undergo eKYC through biometric verification or online authentication. These notices carry a veiled threat: comply immediately, or face higher prices and connection cancellation.
The core issue here is not the identity framework itself; it is the unlawful assertion that every consumer is legally mandated to authenticate using Aadhaar, regardless of whether they claim a subsidy under the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme. The statutory position simply does not support this demand.
The governing framework, alongside landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence and explicit clarifications from the Ministry of Petroleum, restricts mandatory authentication primarily to the receipt of state subsidies. The law distinguishes sharply between an essential service and a government benefit. Conflating the two through aggressive messaging is not mere oversight - it is misrepresentation that deprives consumers of informed choice.
Biometric submission is not a casual administrative formality. The central identity infrastructure now intersects with banking networks, financial instruments, and public databases. Unnecessary authentication expands the exposure risk for security breaches, identity theft, and financial fraud. While statutory bodies routinely warn the public against indiscriminate sharing of biometric credentials, service distributors are actively pushing blanket compliance.
If these mandates stem from official directives issued by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), those orders must be published transparently. If no such legal directive exists, regulatory authorities must hold distributors accountable for misrepresenting the legal standard.
Public administration demands legal precision. Citizens must not be forced to guess whether a demand rests on statutory authority or internal administrative convenience. The State cannot allow essential public utilities to be weaponized for unauthorized data gathering.
This is fundamentally a matter of statutory compliance. Where biometric verification is legally mandated, the executive must explicitly cite the enabling provision. Where it applies solely to subsidy recipients, that threshold must be stated without ambiguity. Obscuring this distinction transforms voluntary procedures into perceived compulsion. When a consumer submits biometric data out of fear of losing an essential utility, free consent is effectively invalidated.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the OMCs, and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) must issue an immediate, unambiguous clarification. Pending such directives, distributors must cease publishing advisories that misstate consumer obligations.
In administrative actions impinging on constitutional rights, legal clarity is not an option - it is a binding necessity.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
