Direct Benefit Transfer and Aadhaar-linked welfare have reorganised India’s social-sector spending, but exclusion errors persist. Discuss.

Introduction:

Direct Benefit Transfer, launched on 1 January 2013, is anchored in the JAM trinity — Jan Dhan Yojana (2014), Aadhaar and Mobile — and underwritten by the Aadhaar Act 2016 read with K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Governance gains: The Economic Survey reports cumulative DBT savings of over Rs 3.48 lakh crore since 2013, with PAHAL LPG, PDS, MGNREGA wages and PM-KISAN (Rs 6,000 annual transfer) showing measurably reduced leakages; over 56 schemes onboarded DBT by 2024, and DigiLocker plus e-KYC stack the welfare rails.

Exclusion errors: PDS denials such as Santoshi Kumari's starvation death in Jharkhand (2017) and Aadhaar authentication failures flagged by the CAG (Report No. 24 of 2021) reveal a fragile last mile; Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act conditionality survived Puttaswamy, but Section 57 (private-party use) was struck down in Puttaswamy II (2018) as disproportionate.

Institutional gap: Grievance redress under the Aadhaar Act is weak, biometric exception protocols are inconsistent, the Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011 is outdated for targeting, and DBT data lacks proactive disclosure under RTI Section 4.

Way forward / Conclusion:

Independent grievance tribunals, mandated biometric-exception protocols and convergence on a refreshed SECC 2.0 — with statutory backing for proactive disclosure of DBT data and an enforceable last-mile entitlement under Section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 — will protect the welfare floor that JAM enables and operationalise the right to social security under Article 41.