Maharashtra Farmer Loses Subsidy For Three Years Due to Aadhaar Duplication Glitch
MAHARASHTRA — A critical security and identity duplication flaw in the Aadhaar system has been exposed in Maharashtra, where a technical glitch resulted in two people being assigned the same identification number. The system error led to a local farmer's government subsidy payments being diverted to another individual over a period of three years.
The issue came to light through the reporting of journalist Ankita Deshkar of The Indian Express. The duplication of the unique identification number meant that the unnamed farmer lost their crucial subsidy payments for three consecutive years, as the funds were mistakenly routed to the other unnamed individual sharing the same Aadhaar number.
Deshkar, a Deputy Copy Editor and dedicated fact-checker based in Maharashtra, reported on the incident as part of her focus on regional governance, cyber law, and digital rights. With a background in electrical engineering and cyber law, Deshkar’s work frequently covers the intersection of technology and public safety, translating complex technical failures into human-centric stories.
The incident has exposed a significant vulnerability in the Aadhaar database, which serves as the foundational identity system for distributing welfare and subsidies across India. The fact that a duplicate number could be generated and remain active for three years without detection has raised serious questions about the verification protocols of the system.
As a certified trainer for the Google News Initiative India Training Network and an AI trainer, Deshkar regularly examines digital threats, verification standards, and public safety issues in the region. Her reporting on this Aadhaar duplication highlights the real-world impact of administrative and technical lapses on vulnerable communities, such as rural farmers who rely on timely subsidy transfers.
The identities of the affected farmer and the second individual have not been disclosed, and official agencies have yet to detail the exact technical breakdown that allowed the duplicate number to be generated.
