DigiLocker's 'mismatch' problem: When technology defies government policy

 

DigiLocker has been functioning in rather strange ways, at least in my experience over the past year. For quite some time now, I have been trying to retrieve various documents from the Government of India's official app, but every attempt ends with an inexplicable "mismatch" error. I even lodged a complaint through its official email ID, explaining that I was unable to retrieve or download essential documents such as my PAN card, driving licence, and the registration certificates of my car and scooter. The response has remained the same: the system refuses access on the grounds of a so-called mismatch.

What makes this even more puzzling is that I could retrieve all these documents through DigiLocker until 2023, and perhaps even later. Since last year, however, it has simply stopped working. On at least three occasions, DigiLocker informed me that my name must exactly match the one in Aadhaar; otherwise, it would not allow me to access the digital versions of my documents. When I sought clarification, it merely repeated the same standard response.

This is surprising because the Government of India itself has long issued instructions that minor mismatches in the spelling or format of names should be ignored.

That is precisely how the concerned government websites function. Whether it is the Income Tax Department or the Regional Transport Office, I can log in without difficulty. I enter my Aadhaar number or registered mobile number, receive an OTP, provide a few additional details such as my date of birth, and I can immediately access all my records. Apparently, the authorities managing DigiLocker consider themselves more rigid than the very departments whose records they host.

The government's instruction to ignore minor name mismatches was issued years ago after it became evident that taxpayers were unable to file income tax returns because the names on their PAN and Aadhaar cards did not perfectly match.

The guideline was straightforward. Ideally, demographic details such as name, gender and date of birth should match in both documents while linking Aadhaar with PAN. However, the government also clarified that in the event of a minor mismatch in the name, an Aadhaar-based OTP should be sent to the registered mobile number, provided the date of birth and gender matched exactly. Differences arising from spelling variations or the presence or absence of a middle name were not to become an obstacle. The Income Tax Department and the transport authorities continue to follow these instructions. DigiLocker too appeared to follow them for several years, but now seems to have become unnecessarily rigid.

My own case illustrates the problem. During the years I lived in Delhi, I followed the common practice there of not including my father's name as a middle name in any official document, including my passport. When I shifted to Gujarat in 1993, I discovered that banks would not open an account unless my father's name appeared as my middle name. I therefore had to adopt that format. The same happened when I obtained my PAN card, driving licence and several other official documents, all of which included my father's name.

However, since my passport issued in Delhi did not contain my middle name, I continued using that version while registering as a voter in Gujarat. Using my voter ID and other supporting documents, I later obtained my Aadhaar card—again without my middle name. Everything worked perfectly for years.

Do the mandarins running DigiLocker believe they are above the Government of India's own guidelines? Or do they expect me to approach the Income Tax Department, the RTO and several other authorities to remove my middle name from every document simply because their software cannot accommodate a minor variation? They owe users an explanation.

I am also told that the problem is not confined to DigiLocker. Even the Election Commission of India's online system reportedly refuses to accept such minor mismatches when a voter attempts to retrieve details online. In fact, it appears to go a step further by insisting that the name in the electoral roll should exactly match the one in Aadhaar.

This reportedly came to light during the recent Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Someone attempting to retrieve his voter details online found that he first had to update his voter record by uploading documents matching his Aadhaar, along with several other supporting documents, including his passport.

Even after successfully completing the registration, he encountered another hurdle. The online form compulsorily required the name of a relative. He first entered his brother's name, but the system rejected it. He then entered his wife's name, with the same result. Eventually, he discovered that the only acceptable option was his father's name. Only then did the system proceed.

One cannot help wondering how millions of citizens who are not digitally savvy are expected to navigate such rigid procedures. Digital governance is supposed to simplify access to public services, not create fresh barriers.

I suspect that many genuine voters may have been discouraged from completing such online processes. Young married women, in particular, often face multiple name changes after marriage because of prevailing social customs. Their surname may change, and in states such as Gujarat, the husband's first name often replaces the father's name as the middle name. Such variations are a social reality across India.

Yet the digital gatekeepers running systems such as DigiLocker and, apparently, sections of the Election Commission's online services seem insensitive to these realities. Technology should adapt to citizens within the framework of government policy, not force citizens into unnecessary bureaucratic exercises simply because software has been designed without sufficient flexibility.