ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

The identified list of 196 potential contaminated sites and 189 hazardous chemicals all over India aren’t comprehensive enough in absence of the inventory of all the chemicals and hazardous chemicals which are used in the country.

Section 2 (2) Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025 is a very progressive piece of subordinate legislation under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as amended through Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2024.

Although the provisions under it state that these Rules shall not apply to a contaminated site affected by radioactive waste as defined under clause (xxii) of rule 2 of the Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987; mining operations as defined under clause (d) of section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957); (pollution of the sea by oil or oily substance as governed by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1958 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil) Rules, 1974; and solid waste from dump site as defined under clause 20 of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, its ambit covers sites where the contamination of a site is due to a contaminant mixed with radioactive waste or mining operations or oil spill or solid waste from dump site. It covers sites where the contamination of the site" is due to the contaminant" which exceeds the limit of response level specified in these rules. In such cases the remediation of the site would be covered under these rules. It will also cover contaminated sites. It defines “contaminated site” as an area or a site affected with contaminants and declared as a contaminated site under Rule 3 of 2025 Rules. The “contaminant” refers to the presence of hazardous substance as defined in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 above the response levels set out in Schedule I which provides standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants.  

This step is a progress in the right direction because Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 do not apply to waste-water and exhaust gases under the Water (Prevention and Control of  Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, wastes arising out of the operation from ships beyond five kilometres of the relevant baseline as covered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, radio-active wastes under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, bio-medical wastes covered under the Bio-Medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 and wastes covered under the Municipal Solid Wastes Management Rules, 2016.

The new Rules provide a timeline for remediation measures. Subsequent to identification of contaminated sites by the local body or district administration, on its own or on receipt of a complaint from public, it is required to list all such areas as suspected contaminated sites in its jurisdiction on centralised online portal taking into account any information available through implementation of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016 and information available through management of consents under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, any studies or investigations done by government agencies, information available through location factors that increase the risk of contamination such as vicinity of a previously contaminated site and underground storage of chemicals, historic industrial or any anthropogenic activity that may have caused contamination of site with hazardous substances or chemicals of concern at the site or such other factors as it considers appropriate.

The local body or district administration is required to furnish the list of suspected contaminated sites to the State Pollution Control Board/Committee periodically on a half-yearly basis on the centralised online portal. The State Board is also required to identify suspected contaminated sites located in the industries or industrial premises through Consent monitoring mechanism available under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is required to undertake preliminary site assessment of the suspected contaminated site by sampling and analysis of the suspected contaminated site, within ninety days from the date of receipt of such list.  On completion of the preliminary site assessment, the State Board is required to list the suspected contaminated site as probable contaminated site if the contaminant is found to be above the screening level or delist the site as investigated site if the contaminant is found to be below the screening level. It is required to furnish such a list of probable contaminated sites and investigated sites to the Central Pollution Control Board on the centralised online portal, within thirty days from the date of completion of the preliminary site assessment. On its own or through a reference organisation, it is required to undertake a detailed site assessment of a probable contaminated site by detailed sampling and analysis covering the entire geographical area of the probable contaminated site, within three months from the date of listing of such site.

After completion of the detailed site assessment, it is required to list the site as a contaminated site for further action if the contaminant is found to be above the response level. After completion of the detailed site assessment, it may delist the site as an investigated site if contaminant is found to be below response level. It is required to issue a public notice restricting or prohibiting any activity during the preliminary or detailed assessment of the suspected or probable contaminated site, respectively, keeping in view the risks involved to human health and the environment, under intimation to relevant authorities in the state government.

The state board is required to publish the list of contaminated sites on the centralised online portal inviting comments and suggestions from the stakeholders likely to be affected, within sixty days of such publication. Upon receipt of the comments and suggestions from the stakeholders, it is required to publish the final list of contaminated sites on the centralised online portal and also publish a notice in this regard in two local newspaper having circulation in the area for the information of the general public and also indicating the precaution to be taken in this regard.

For remediation of the contaminated sites, the state pollution board is required to select a reference organisation with experience in assessment of contamination of hazardous substances and chemicals and preparation of remediation plan, within three months from the date of publication of the list of the contaminated sites and initiate preparation of remediation plan and execute remediation activities.

Upon publication of the contaminated site, after an inquiry, it is required to identify the person who is responsible for causing the contamination of the site within a period of ninety days. In case, the contaminated site has been transferred by the person (transferor) causing the contamination to another person (transferee), the state board is required to determine the responsible person as the other person (transferee). Where the responsible person is identified, it is required to direct the responsible person to prepare a remediation plan and undertake remediation through the reference organisation and bear the expenses towards it. 

Upon directions from the board, the responsible person is required to prepare the remediation plan within six months from the date of directions and submit it to the state pollution control board for its approval. The remediation plan is required to lay down the site-specific remediation level, the method of risk assessment, the method of remediation or decontamination or cleaning up of the contaminated site, the financial resources required and the time frame required for undertaking remediation along with environmental and safety safeguards during remediation, post-remediation monitoring and assessment activities, and occupational health, safety and emergency response. The board is required to review and approve the remediation plan submitted by the responsible person within three months from the date of submission of the remediation plan, and forward a copy thereof to the Central Board for information. After approval of the remediation plan, the responsible person is required to initiate the remediation of the contaminated site as per the remediation plan and furnish half-yearly progress report to the state board with intimation to the central pollution control board till the completion of the remediation.

Based on the approval of the remediation plan, the state board is required to recommend to the state government for issuing orders for rehabilitation of people from contaminated sites to take forward the remediation activities. Where the responsible person is not identified, the state board is  required to prepare a remediation plan on its own or through the reference organisation within six months from the date of publication of the contaminated site, for undertaking remediation of the contaminated site either out of its own resources or through support from state government or both and resources of central government within ninety days from the finalisation of the remediation plan.

After completion of the remediation, it is required to notify the remediated site specifying the land use fit for carrying out certain activities or restrict any such activity on such site and furnish a report to the central board. In case the suspected contaminated site or the probable contaminated site is located in the premises of an industry or a notified industrial area, the state board is required to direct the Industrial Development Authority concerned or the industry concerned to carry out preliminary or detailed site assessment, as the case may be, through a reference organisation and furnish a report to state board till its completion for undertaking remediation of such sites.

These Rules were long due but its scope is limited to only 189 hazardous chemicals including hazardous asbestos. It has missed the opportunity to provide an inventory of all the chemicals and minerals in general and hazardous chemicals and minerals which are used/emitted/transported in the country. There is a compelling scientific logic for the environment ministry to draw lessons from inventories in China, Europe and USA and prepare an inventory of all the chemicals and minerals used/emitted/transported in the country. Now that the new Rules reiterate the hazardous nature of asbestos, ahead of the 21st meeting of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade which is scheduled from 23-26 September 2025 in Rome, India should support CRC's recommendation for inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the category of industrial chemicals in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, which is pending since 2006.

Coincidentally, Dinesh Runiwal, a scientist in the Hazardous Substances Management Division in the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) is a member of the CRC until April 30, 2028. He replaced Amit Vashishtha, a scientist with the Hazardous Substances Management Division of MoEF & CC. Runiwal is also the Member Secretary of the 14 member-Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry-1 Sector) under Environment Impact Assessment Division under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. This Committee undertakes appraisal of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. There appears to be a conflict-of-interest in his dual role. In his latter role he is part of the Expert Appraisal Committee which grants environmental clearance to plants of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. In his former role he is part of the CRC which has recommended inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention which includes pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure. Can Runiwal do justice to both the roles? 

In order to empower the environment ministry, the environment minister should be included in the 11-member Prime Minister headed Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and 12-member Cabinet Committee on lnvestment and Growth.which are the key committees which end up providing clearance to projects which cause catastrophic contamination. This is required to ensure that it does not take decisions which promote environmental pollution which have intragenerational and intergenerational adverse impacts. These two committees alone can provide logistical and financial support for creating a national inventory of chemicals and contaminated sites for remediation. In the absence of their support the Rules will remain an exercise in pious thinking devoid of environmentally sound scientific action. 

Coincidentally, Jagat Prakash Nadda, the union minister for chemicals, which promotes trade in chemicals including asbestos is also the union minister for health which regulates chemicals including health impact of all kinds of asbestos. Unless such conflict-of-interest is removed the purpose of well intentioned rules of the union environment minister will be defeated.         

Based on the recommendations of Prof. MGK. Menon headed High Powered Committee (HPC) hazardous wastes, Supreme Court had given 5-7 months for the preparation and publication of National Inventory regarding Hazardous Waste generation and hazardous waste dump sites after States and Union Territories prepare such inventories" fixing time frame for implementation of Rehabilitation Plan in its order dated October 14, 2003 but the Court's direction has not been complied with so far. The Court had directed the union government to come out with a national policy on hazardous wastes, landfills, ship-breaking and sought display of nature and quantity of hazardous waste generated by factories.

The fourteen Terms of Reference on which the Prof. M.G.K. Menon headed High Powered Committee  gave its report and recommendations to the Supreme Court were:
"(1) Whether and to what extent the hazardous wastes listed in Basel Convention have been banned by the Govt. and to examine which other hazardous wastes, other than listed in Basel Convention and Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, require banning.
(2) To verify the present status of the units handling hazardous wastes imported for recycling
or generating/recycling indigenous hazardous wastes on the basis of information provided by respective States/UTs and determine the status of implementation of Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 by various States/UTs and in the light of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(3) What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that banned toxic/hazardous wastes are not allowed to be imported.
(4) What are the changes required in the existing laws to regulate the functioning of units handling hazardous wastes and for protecting the people (including workers in the factory) from environmental hazards.
(5) To assess the adequacy of the existing facilities for disposal of hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner and to make recommendations about the most suitable manner for disposal of hazardous wastes.
(6)What is further required to be done to effectively prohibit, monitor and regulate the functioning of units handling hazardous wastes keeping in view the existing body of laws.
(7) To make recommendations as to what should be the prerequisites for issuance of authorisation/permission under Rule 5 and Rule 11 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989.
(8) To identify the criteria for designation of areas for locating units handling hazardous wastes and waste disposal sites.
(9) To determine as to whether the authorizations/permissions given by the State Boards for handling hazardous wastes are in accordance with Rules 5(4) and Rule 11 of hazardous Waste Rules, 1989 and whether the decision of the State Pollution Control Boards is based on any prescribed procedure of checklist.
(10) To recommend a mechanism for publication of inventory at regular intervals giving area-wise information about the level and nature of hazardous wastes.
(11) What should be the framework for reducing risks to environment and public health by stronger regulation and by promoting production methods and products which are ecologically friendly and thus reduce the production of toxics?
(12) To consider any other related area as the Committee may deem fit.
(13) To examine the quantum and nature of hazardous waste stock lying at the docks/ports/ICDs and recommend a mechanism for its safe disposal or re-export to the original exporters.
(14) Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking."

With regard to decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking,Court’s order of October 14, 2003 reads: "At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention’s Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous substances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking. Participation should include from Central and State level.” There has been no compliance with this direction so far.

Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025 is a step in the right direction but more such steps are required in the light of the Court's directions on the recommendations of the HPC on these 14 subjects.  

Dr. Gopal Krishna

The author is a practicing advocate and a law, philosophy and public policy researcher on the subject of science, corporate crimes, ecocide, disarmament and big data. 

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) and Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) join Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries to express unwavering solidarity with Greenpeace in the wake of the deeply unjust verdict handed down by a North Dakota, United States jury for more than $600 million in damages against Greenpeace entities—including Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International—in an outrageous Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). 

Morton County jury of nine reached a verdict in Energy Transfer’s meritless lawsuit against Greenpeace entities in the US and Greenpeace International, finding the entities liable for more than US$660 million, on March 19, 2025, Big Oil Bullies around the world will continue to try to silence free speech and peaceful protest against Energy Transfer, a company that runs one of the largest fossil fuel pipeline networks and associated energy infrastructure in the US. Its founder and Executive Chairman is Texan billionaire Kelcy Warren, a key financial supporter of Donald Trump. In April 2016, tribal members set up prayer encampments to voice objections to the route ET had chosen for its Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), and organised powerful displays of resistance to corporate power that clearly rattled Big Oil. 

Energy Transfer’s lawsuits are examples of SLAPPs, the questionable lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.

ET’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on the state law so ET promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years.  

A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

Notably, a report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 1049 SLAPP suits in Europe in the period 2010-2023, with 166 lawsuits initiated in 2023. 

In February 2025, GPI initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against ET. GPI is seeking to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of ET’s meritless lawsuits. 

Since 2017, GPI and Greenpeace entities in the US have been defending against ET’s brazen lawsuits, filed in the wake of the 2016 Indigenous-led protests against its Dakota Access Pipeline, which ET claims were orchestrated by Greenpeace. ET’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. ET promptly filed a new case recycling similar arguments in a North Dakota state court, now packaged as claims for defamation, conspiracy and other torts. The jury trial is opened on February 24, 2025. North Dakota lacks anti-SLAPP legislation. 

Energy Transfer’s lawsuits are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs. Like all SLAPPs, ET’s lawsuits have been an attempt to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silenced.

Based in the Netherlands, Greenpeace International is citing Dutch law on torts and abuse of rights, as well as Chapter V of the EU Directive, adopted in 2024, which protects organisations based in the EU against SLAPPs outside the EU, and entitles them to compensation.

Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’). Directive (EU) 2024/1069, Chapter V, provides protection against third-country judgments. 

The Directive, along with existing Dutch law, paves the way for GPI to pursue remedies against three entities in ET’s corporate group, specifically Energy Transfer LP, Energy Transfer Operating LP, and Dakota Access LLC, for the damage it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the SLAPP suits and related actions in the US. 

The Netherlands, like all EU Member States, has until May 2026 to transpose the Directive into national law. But the Dutch government has stated existing Dutch law can and should be interpreted as giving effect to Chapter V of the Directive, with no need for amendment.

Greenpeace International sent Energy Transfer a Notice of Liability in July 2024, summoning it to withdraw its lawsuit in North Dakota and pay damages, or face legal action. Energy Transfer refused to do so.

The EU’s anti-SLAPP Directive comes into force amid the fossil fuel industry’s widespread misuse of legal systems to target environmental watchdogs, and any critics, part of a wider trend of increasing SLAPPs. A report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 1,049 SLAPP suits in Europe in the period 2010-2023, with 166 lawsuits initiated in 2023. The number of SLAPPs in Europe continues to rise. 

Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years, with Shell and Total’s attempts at silencing already ending in embarrassment. On December 10, 2024, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK agreed with Shell to settle the oil giant’s multimillion US dollar intimidation lawsuit over a peaceful protest conducted by the campaign groups in 2023.

The settlement followed over a year of sustained campaigning by Greenpeace against Shell’s lawsuit. Experts have described the case as a SLAPP, a type of abusive lawsuit commonly brought by wealthy corporations to silence critics.

The Greenpeace defendants faced over $11 million USD in damages and legal costs as a result of the lawsuit. As part of the final settlement, they will accept no liability and pay no money to Shell, instead agreeing to donate £300,000 to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI). 

They also agreed to avoid protesting for a period at four Shell sites in the northern North Sea. The sites in question are mostly declining fields where the Greenpeace defendants had no plans to take direct action. Greenpeace continues to campaign against Shell including in the North Sea. 

In such a backdrop, the alarming decision by the jury in USA is a dangerous escalation in corporate attacks on civil society, aimed at chilling future protests, and silencing those who dare to stand in defense of people and the planet. It also further undermines the sovereignty of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who has been resisting Energy Transfer’s efforts to force the Dakota Access Pipeline through their land and drinking water supply. Greenpeace, answering the Tribe’s call for solidarity, stood alongside hundreds of Tribes and tens of thousands of water protectors from around the world in nonviolent resistance at Standing Rock. 

This jury verdict is not confined to targeting Greenpeace—it is an attack on fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and the right to protest. It is an attack on Indigenous sovereignty. It is an attack on the collective ability to resist environmental destruction and corporate crimes. 

This verdict is a troubling reminder of the urgent need to defend democracy, free speech, and the right to a livable planet across the globe. The fact remains no lawsuit can extinguish the power of just collective action.

. 

In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.

              -Thomas Szasz in The Second Sin, 1974 

“I have a file on you.”

- MK Narayanan’s routine threat to his adversaries as National Security Adviser (NSA) quoted in Sanjay Baru's book 'The Accidental Prime Minister: The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh'

“One way to ensure that the unique identification (UID) number is used by all government and private agencies is by inserting it into the birth certificate of the infant. Since the birth certificate is the original identity document, it is likely that this number will then persist as the key identifier through the individual’s various life events, such as joining school, immunizations, voting etc.”
- A confidential document of UIDAI titled ‘Creating a unique identity number for every resident in India’, leaked by Wikileaks on 13 Nov 2009

Citing sources ANI new agency has reported that “Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has called for a discussion with the Home Secretary, Secretary Legislative Department and CEO UIDAI with the Commission, on the linking of EPIC & Aadhaar. The meeting is scheduled in the Election Commission on Tuesday, March 18, 2025”. A meeting with Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is linked to MHA’s National Population Register (NPR) under Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 framed under Citizenship Act, 1955. It is linked to Government of India’s notification dated January 28, 2009 which constituted Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The fact is the terms of reference of the UIDAI mandated it "take necessary steps to ensure collation of National Population Register (NPR) with UID (as per approved strategy)", to "identify new partner/user agencies", to "issue necessary instructions to agencies that undertake creation of databases… (to) enable collation and correlation with UID and its partner databases" and UIDAI “shall own and operate the database".

The 35-page long final report of the “Extraordinary Commission for Clarifying Cases of Illegal Surveillance, Their Impact on the Electoral Process in the Republic of Poland, and Reforms of Special Services’ is extremely relevant for the unfolding illegitimate surveillance of electoral process in India by non-State actors, the donors of the ruling and opposition parties. Unlike the legislature of the Republic of India, the legislature of the Republic of Poland assigned the Extraordinary Commission the task of clarifying disclosed cases of illegal surveillance using, among other things, spyware software like Pegasus, and violations of the law during the use of operational control by special Services, evaluation of the impact of disclosed cases of illegal surveillance on the electoral process and development of legislative initiatives reforming the activities of surveillance agencies. The report was adopted by the legislature in September 2023.  

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, surveillance means ‘close observation, especially of a suspected person’. So far the Supreme Court has not had the occasion to examine the most glaring aspect of unlimited-cyber biometric surveillance of judges, soldiers, voters, farmers, legislators, editors, officials and their families, which entails close observation of all the present and future Indians indiscriminately as suspects. In fact each new born infant is a suspect. There is a file being created to track and profile him for ever. The 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Court has denied itself opportunity to pronounce the verdict on the constitutionality of biometric-electoral surveillance through UID/Aadhaar database. It is apparent that the Extraordinary Commission is more concerned about the unlimited surveillance than the Courts and legislatures in India.    

A confidential document of UIDAI titled 'Creating a unique identity number for every resident in India', leaked by Wikileaks on 13 November 2009 reveals that "One way to ensure that the unique identification (UID) number is used by all government and private agencies is by inserting it into the birth certificate of the infant. Since the birth certificate is the original identity document, it is likely that this number will then persist as the key identifier through the individual's various life events, such as joining school, immunizations, voting etc." Notably, there was never an occasion wherein there was an all-party meeting to seek the consent of all the political parties with regard to merger of UID/Aadhaar and NPR database with "electoral roll database".

Parliament is yet to discuss duplicate Voter ID Scam 

In this backdrop,  on March 10, 2025, Harivansh, Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha observed: "The notices of Shri Tiruchi Siva, Shri Sandosh Kumar P, Shri Vaiko, Shri P.P. Suneer and Shri P. Wilson have demanded discussion over the concerns regarding upcoming delimitation exercise to Southern States. The notices of Shri Saket Gokhale, Shrimati Sagarika Ghose, Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Ajay Makan have demanded discussion over the alleged lapse of the Election Commission in issuance of multiple duplicate EPIC across the States." EPIC refers to Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers.

Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha refused to allow discussion saying, "Members may recall the detailed rulings of Rule 267 imparted by the hon. Chairman, Rajya Sabha, on 8th December, 2022, and 19th December, 2022....The same have been reiterated by the hon. Chairman a number of times....Since these notices do not conform to the directives imparted by the hon. Chairman, the same are declined."

On March 10, 2015 Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha observed: "Questions are being raised across the country on the voter's list. In every opposition, questions are raised on the voter's list. The entire opposition is just saying that there should be a discussion on the voter's list."

During the Zero Hour discussion in the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition pointed out that voter lists were being "twisted" across the country which undermines electoral democracy. When Om Birla, the Speaker of Lok Sabha asked him whether the government drew out the voter lists. The Leader of Opposition said that while the government may not be drawing the voter lists, questions are being raised about voter lists across the country.

On March 10, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Kalyan Banerjee raised the issue of large-scale duplication of EPIC voter identity card numbers across states during Zero Hour mention. He informed Lok Sabha, "The Election Commission all the time says that they are conducting elections in a transparent and fair manner. It is clear that there had been no transparent elections in the last few years. There had been no fair elections in the last few years, not at all. The Election Commission has not acted properly, and appropriate proceedings should be brought against the for that reason."

On March 10, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Sougata Ray raised the issue of large-scale duplication of EPIC voter identity card numbers across states during Zero Hour mention. He informed Lok Sabha, "I demand that the total voter list should be thoroughly revised and the Election Commission should answer to the country why such mistakes have occurred in the voter list.…You know that the Election Commission is under the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. He informed the Speaker, Lok Sabha that the Election Commission is under the government. It implies that it has a role in the preparation of the voter list.  

On March 11, 2025,  All India Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Sagarika Ghose from West Bengal raised serious questions the following questions that Election Commission of India cannot ignore: “How many duplicate Voter ID cards exist?, If there are changes in the electoral roll, why hasn’t a separate roll been published?, Why is there no action despite credible evidence of Aadhaar cards being cloned for fake voter registrations?” Notably, West Bengal Assembly is the only State legislature which has passed an unanimous resolution against Aadhaar Number.  

On March 11, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Kirti Azad said, "In just three months, Maharashtra saw 40 lakh new voters added ahead of the elections. How is that even possible? EPIC numbers, meant to be unique, are now linked to multiple individuals. Even Aadhaar cards are being cloned! And now, @ECISVEEP wants 90 days to investigate. Does that mean they already know the scale of this fraud? How many fake cards exist? Who is behind this massive electoral malpractice?". The cloning of Aadhaar Number illustrates that Aaadhaar Number database project is a tried, tested and failed project but parties are yet to demand its abandonment.

Kirti Azad referring to the Press Note dated March 7, 2025 issued by the Election Commission of India entitled "Commission to address decades long issue of duplicate EPIC numbers within next 3 months" The note reads: "Electoral Roll updation takes place under DEO & ERO with continuous public and political parties participation India’s Electoral Rolls are the biggest database of electors across the globe with over 99 crore registered electors”…As regards the issue of duplicate EPIC numbers, the Commission has already taken cognizance of the matter. Irrespective of an EPIC number, an elector who is linked to the electoral roll of a particular polling station can cast his vote at that polling station only and nowhere else….The issue of allotment of duplicate numbers due to incorrect series across States/UTs could not have been detected as the States/UTs were independently managing the electoral roll databases. The Commission has now decided to resolve this long pending issue after detailed discussions within the technical teams and concerned CEOs in the next three months by ensuring a unique national EPIC number to the existing electors having a duplicate EPIC number and for future electors as well."

On March 11, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress tweeted:"The EPIC number duplication scam is a calculated assault on democracy. Issuing multiple voter IDs with the same number is a direct violation of electoral laws, yet  @ECISVEEP has turned a blind eye for years. Why was this massive fraud kept under wraps until Smt. @MamataOfficial exposed it? And how does ECI plan to fix it in three months when it failed to even acknowledge the issue for years? Our MPs confronted the Chief Election Commissioner today, demanding accountability. But when faced with hard questions, all they had were vague, evasive answers. The fight to protect free and fair elections is on, and we won’t back down!"

Claiming the EPIC number duplication SCAM to be the BIGGEST ELECTORAL FRAUD of our times, a 10-member delegation of All India Trinamool Congress MPs met Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner on March 11, 2025 submitted a letter demanding to know:”How many duplicate EPICs exist, and in which states?Will voters with duplicate EPICs be disenfranchised? How is Aadhaar cloning impacting voter registration and electoral rolls?" Aadhaar Number seems to be a Trojan horse somewhat like Pegasus which has been probed by the Polish legislature.  

On March 11, 2025, Election Commission of India issued a Press Note entitled "EC invites Party Presidents and senior leaders for interaction to further strengthen electoral processes within legal framework". Such verbal articulations do inspire even an iota of confidence among the parties and the citizens.

On March 12, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party Leader in Rajya Sabha, Derek O' Brien referred to "enough precedents" to demand an open discussion in the Rajay Sabha on the EPIC number duplication issue on the floor of Parliament next week under Rule 176 for 3 minutes if the it has not been allowed under Rule 267. He underlined that 7-8 parties are demanding it.

Earlier, on March 3, 2025, Empowered Action Group of Leaders and Experts (EAGLE) of Indian National Congress issued a release on the subject of Election Commission's complicity in voter list manipulation. It reads: "There are some startling developments on the issue of voter list manipulation that have surfaced. The same voter id number is being used for several voters, both from the same constituency in the same state as well as from other states. This is utterly shocking. A unique voter id for every Indian voter is the fundamental requirement and premise of a clean voter list. Multiple voters having the same voter id number is  as  bizarre  as  multiple  vehicles  bearing  the  same  registration  number in  the  country. It is unheard of in any electoral democracy….The  Election  Commission’s  stoic  silence  has only  lent  credence  to  their complicity in voter list manipulation."

It also stated: "When confronted with proof of same voter id number used by multiple voters, the Election  Commission  initially responded  claiming  that  a  voter  id  number  may  be  the same across states, but it is unique to a particular state. Even that turned out to be a blatant lie as there are cases of the same voter id number used by several voters in the same state and in the same constituency. After this was pointed out, there has been pin drop silence.It is elementary knowledge that a person who can legally migrate to any state of the country must have a unique voter id number throughout the country. The Election Commission   cannot   feign   ignorance   or   incompetence   in   this   matter.   It   is   a   deliberate act of voter list manipulation to aid the ruling party and thwart the idea of free and fair elections.The  cover  is  now  blown."

Earlier on March 2, 2025, Election Commission of India issued a Press Note entitled "EC clarifies that duplication in EPIC number does not imply duplicate/fake voters." It reads:”Any case of duplicate EPIC number will be rectified by allotting a unique EPIC number."

Responding to the Press Note of the Election Commission of India, on March 7, 2025, EAGLE of Congress Party issued a release on the subject of duplicitous response by the Election Commission to the issue of duplicate voter- ID numbers. It reads:" The Election Commission of India {ECI} has issued a duplicitous response on the issue of same voter Ins being allotted to multiple voters. The ECI, in its response, hides behind its processes to offer a feeble explanation. Shockingly but not surprisingly, the ECI has been forced to admit that its voter lists are flawed and not trustworthy. The Election Commission, in a letter issued on September 18th 2008 to Chief Electoral Officers of all States, had said that `voter-IDs are unique'. However, the ECI today says, the issue of duplicate voter-IDs is a "decades long issue"….Was the ECI then all along misrepresenting to the voters of India that the 'voter-IDs were unique'?"

Ramifications of merger of Aadhaar Number with Voter ID Number Card

A Voter ID Card, also known as the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) is a photo identity card that is issued by the Election Commission of India to all individuals who are eligible to vote. It is issued under Section 61(b), Representation of the People Act, 1951; Rule 28(2), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It serves as an identification proof when individuals cast their vote and prevents the impersonation of voters. Rule 28(1), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is relevant in this regard. The Voter ID Card contains the elector’s name, age and residence (among other particulars), and must have elector’s photograph affixed to it. It bears the signature of the Registration Officer i.e., the electoral registration officer of your constituency. This provision is under Rule 2(d), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The voter’s card is prepared in duplicate, and one copy is retained with the registration officer while the other is delivered to the voter. This is required under Rule 28(3), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, one can enroll as a voter if one is an Indian citizen, has attained the age of 18 years and is ordinarily resident of the polling area of the constituency where one wants to be enrolled. Under Section 11A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one can enroll as a voter if one is not disqualified to be enrolled as an elector. The disqualification may happen if one is convicted for an offence or one carries out corrupt practices.

The proponents of world's biggest citizen identification scheme aims to converge electoral photo identity card (EPIC) numbers of electoral database, the UID/Aadhaar number database called Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) and the National Population Register (NPR). In their myopia, political parties in particular and citizens in general have failed to fathom its ramifications for voting by electors in a democracy. A strange situation is emerging where citizens chose a government that was supposed to represent them but their government is undertaking the task of biometrically authenticating whether or not those it represents are indeed those who they claim to be.  

In a letter dated 7 June 2011, the Director General and Mission Director of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) wrote to Chief Election Commissioner saying, “The Election Commission of India (ECI) may also like to leverage Aadhaar infrastructure in cleaning/ updating their existing electoral data base. Aadhaar numbers issued by the UIDAI can also be included in the list of valid proof of identity (POI) and proof of address (POA) documents of the Election Commission during the polls for identity verification.”

The file notings by ECI on the UIDAI’s letter reads: “How can Aadhaar number used as proof of address”. The reply from ECI dated 17 June 2011 on the letter from UIDAI sought following information before taking any further action:
 • Whether UIDAI has the provision to update the address in the database, whenever there is a change in address, to use Aadhaar number as proof of address?

• Whether any process has been defined to use Aadhaar numbers on electoral roll database?

• Whether UIDAI can include EPIC numbers in Aadhaar database?

Responding to these question, in its letter dated 11 July 2011 UIDAI wrote, “Aadhaar has the provision to update the demographic or biometric information of the resident in CIDR from time to time to ensure that the CIDR data is up-to date and accurate all the time. The tool is currently under testing and should be widely available shortly.” The CIDR stands for Central Identities Data Repository of the Aadhaar numbers. Has the “tool” promised July 2011 available now? This reply is far from the truth. It further wrote, Aadhaar numbers can be seeded into EPIC and electoral roll databases to clean those databases and also to bring standardisation and uniformity in the Election Commission’s databases across the country. UIDAI does provide necessary technical and financial support under its information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure scheme for integration of Aadhaar number with database of concerned Ministries/ Departments to make them UID compliant. However, the process and schemes to use Aadhaar numbers for their applications are to be defined by the concerned Departments themselves.” 

The notification of 28 January 2009 that set up UIDAI, provides the terms of reference (TOR) for its work. There is no reference to the collation of UID number database with electoral database in the TOR. But the TOR does refer to “collation and correlation with UID and its partner databases.” If this reference to ‘partner database’ included electoral database, the UID/ Aadhaar enrolment form never revealed it and took Indian residents for a ride.  

UIDAI argued, “Aadhaar database is restricted to the name, date of birth, gender, address, facial image, ten fingerprints and iris of the resident. The data fields are based on the recommendation of the Demographic and Data field Verification Committee headed by N Vittal, former chief vigilance commissioner (CVC). Since Aadhaar database contains absolute minimum information of a resident necessary to establish identity, it is not possible to include EPIC numbers in the Aadhaar database. However, the ECI should seed Aadhaar numbers in the electoral database as clarified above.”

Prior to this KM Chandrasekhar, as cabinet secretary, Government of India (GoI) wrote a letter dated 25 April, 2011 addressed to VK Bhasin, secretary, legislative department stating, “Aadhaar can be treated as a valid Proof of Identity (PoI) and Proof of Address (PoA).”        

The Election Commission in its letter dated 4 March 2013 to UIDAI on the subject of “Seeding of Aadhaar number in Electoral Database” had written that “Commission feels that it would be better that EPIC no. is collected at the time of enrollment for Aadhaar  and put in the Aadhaar database…ECI has already issued instructions that Aadhaar cards can be used as alternative identity documents at polling station…It may be mentioned here that Ministry of Home Affairs has also agreed to print EPIC no. on smart card as issued by Registrar General of India…Under the circumstances, it is once again requested that EPIC no. may be made mandatory for enrollment in Aadhaar.”  In its letter dated 29 October 2012, the ECI had argued that “including EPIC no. as mandatory field in UIDAI database would enable better integration between UIDAI database and electoral database, which will make Aadhaar numbers more useful.”

In a letter dated 16 April 2012, RK Singh, the then secretary, ministry of home affairs  (MHA) wrote to Dr SY Quraishi, the then Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), with reference to latter’s letter dated 4 April 2012 “regarding inclusion of Electoral Photo Identity Card -EPIC number in the Aadhaar database.”

The secretary, MHA wrote, “The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India is in the process of creating the National Population Register (NPR) in the country. The NPR, when completed will be a register of all usual residents of the country, which would have the Aadhaar number besides the demographic and biometric data. The Government is also considering a proposal to issue Resident Identity (smart) Cards to all usual residents above the age of 18 years. The scheme is already making good progress and is likely to be completed in the next two years.”

At that time, the secretary, MHA also wrote, “As a part of the process of creating the NPR, the EPIC number is also being collected. This would enable mapping of the Aadhaar number to the EPIC number right from the beginning…Once the mapping is completed, there could be a lot of synergy between the EPIC and NPR databases.” He pointed out that “while the registration under the NPR is mandatory under the provisions of the Citizenship Act 1955, the production of EPIC Card during the NPR enrolment and capturing the EPIC number is being done on a voluntary basis from the residents. There are, therefore, gaps in the collection of the numbers. The gap can easily be bridged as the Authorities notified for the creation of the NPR are the same as those notified under the Electoral Law and if necessary instructions are issued by the Election Commission, they could easily ensure a complete coverage.”   

It is intriguing as to how Election Commission has failed to comprehend the adverse consequences of such convergence. There is nothing in public domain to suggest that implications of such merger have been examined.    

The then secretary, MHA informed the CEC that there is mutual agreement between the MHA’s RGI and ECI that “there is a considerable potential to synchronise the two databases and set up a unified platform for future updating of the same and sought CEC’s advice to take it forward. Has it been realized that synchronization of the two databases is happening as per the design of Wipro’s document and is beyond the mandate given to UIDAI and RGI?

It may recalled that one of the earliest documents that refer UIDAI is a 14-page long document titled ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd for the Planning Commission envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s Aadhaar would have with the electoral database. The use of electoral database mentioned in Wipro’s document remains on the agenda of the proponents of Aadhaar.

A former special secretary of the R&AW and author of “Escape to Nowhere: Story of an Espionage Agent”, Amar Bhushan says, “It’s the charter of every intelligence organisation to infiltrate and subvert other intelligence agencies.” It has now been revealed that Major Rabinder Singh could not be caught red handed because he had been transmitting the information and documents using voice over internet protocol (VoIP) meant for the delivery of voice communications and multimedia sessions over IPl networks through his laptops, which had imprints of 23,100 files. Thus, a database of 23, 100 files of R&AW has been transferred to US agencies without putting any remedial mechanism in place. Are our intelligence agencies really so naïve that they did not know that data can be transferred with VoIP? Can these agencies be trusted with the data of Indians? Aren’t all the data collected by UIDAI beinhg transmitted to foreign countries through companies like L1 Identity Solutions, Accenture and Mongo DB?

The Wikileaked document titled ‘Creating a unique identity number for every resident in India’ that declared itself to be a ‘Confidential- property of UIDAI’ states, “The Unique ID or UID will be a numeric that is unique across all 1.2 billion residents in India. The UID number will not contain intelligence. In older identity systems, it was customary to load the ID number with information related to the date of birth, as well as the location of the person. However, this makes the number susceptible to fraud and theft, and migration of the resident quickly makes location details out of date. The UID will be a random number.”

While the Election Commission, cabinet secretary, home secretary and UIDAI have accepted UID/Aadhaar as “proof of address”, this Wikileaked document reveals that making it a proof of location was not part of its conceptual design. It is a puzzle as how agencies after agencies started accepting biometric Aadhaar as proof of address?      

Like Indian NSA’s threat to his adversaries about having a file on them, having a UID/Aadhaar number automatically creates a file of the Indian residents in question. Even infants are not spared in this scheme of things. 

The confidential document reveals that from day one the Prime Minister wanted to create a file on each of “1.2 billion residents”, the division of work between MHA’s NPR and UIDAI was merely an attention diversion tactics to outwit political scrutiny. The merger of the electoral database with UID/number debunks UIDAI’s claim that UID number “will not contain intelligence” and “the location of the person.”

From these disclosures, it appears that PMO has adopted an adversarial role vis-à-vis Indians and acting beyond their legal mandate to pander to the interests of the commercial czars, non-state actors and foreign intelligence companies. 

But the opposition parties are yet to promise repeal of Aadhaar Act, a mini-Constitution emulating the example of 44^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 because in the name of biometric identification, civil death of citizens is being normalised and naturalised as if Article 21 of the Constitution has been abrogated.  There is a compelling logic for the parties to resist bulldozing the database project by compelling various government departments and States including Election Commission to comply with the dictates from the global ID-cartel. The opposition parties must protect the Prime Minister who takes “a daily briefing from chiefs of both the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) who were told to report to the National Security Advisor (NSA)” who has a file on his friends and adversaries but he and his officials do not seem to realize that National Security Agency of US and its Five Eyes Alliance have a file on them too. The intriguing eagerness to merge electoral photo identity card -EPIC numbers and electoral database, with the Aadhaar biometric database merits attention of all Indians because it appears that the Prime Minister, his colleagues and senior officials have accepted the fait accompli of all the Indians including them being subjected to surveillance by imperial powers and their collaborators. Hasn’t officialdom and political class been blind to subversion of national interest through transfer of citizen’s databases to foreign state and non-state actors?  

It is apparent that the merger of Voter-ID Number and Aadhaar Number through amendment in Aadhaar Act is an exercise in merger of electoral database and Aadhaar database which is all set to enable total control of the extinguish political and civil rights of present and future generations by rewriting of the political geography of the country with despotic consequences. Is it the case that the merger of Aadhaar database with all existing databases is a scam which is bigger than all the scams of independent India?

Dr Gopal Krishna

(The author is an Advocate and a researcher of philosophy and law. His current work is focused on the philosophy of digital totalitarianism and the monetisation of nature. He has appeared before the Supreme Court's Committees, Parliamentary Committees of Europe, Germany and India and UN agencies on the subject of national and international legislation. He is the co-founder of the East India Research Council (EIRC). He is the convener of the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) which has been campaigning for freedom from UID/Aadhaar/NPR and DNA profiling through criminal identification procedures since 2010. He had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that questioned and trashed the biometric identification of Indians through UID/Aadhaar Number. He is an ex-Fellow, Berlin-based International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC). He is also the editor of www.toxicswatch.org.)