I may have yielded, but that happened with the acknowledgement that it's not entirely a bad thing. Other IDs have varying levels of validity and authenticity; today I am of the opinion that countries like India shouldn't waste money and time on these. In fact, I'd say ditch the PAN card as well.

If Aadhaar makes it easier for people living near poverty to get say bank accounts, it'd trump the reservations I have. That's what made UPI possible - just about everyone today has UPI, even people begging for money sometimes have a QR code handy (at least here in Bangalore).

The friction already existed long before supreme court orders. No two departments agreed upon what ID they would need for doing the work. It could be rationcard, PAN, passport, driving license etc. Some organizations asked for more than one ID just in case. India just has too many IDs and it is asked for too many use cases.

Aadhar made it easier than before. It is really a quality of life improvement.

The main issue is government requiring IDs even when it is not usually needed in other countries. Mostly in the name of security. This is the root cause. Aadhar is just the symptom.

However Aadhar does enable deeper breaches into privacy due to its unified nature and the way it is validated through government owned infrastructure. There is full tracking possible on all the services that the residents used.

If Aadhar was a self sovereign ID, then having a single ID is definitely a good thing. It keeps privacy intact while usable where needed.

Hmm, could you previously open a bank account, buy a SIM card, apply for a loan, or enter an airport without any of those cards? If so, I think it's plausible that the government responded by adding friction to daily life in a way that promoted Aadhaar. If not, they didn't.