Maharashtra’s decision to introduce a Facial Recognition System (FRS) at the Mantralaya is being sold as a step towards enhanced security, transparency and efficiency. The Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government insists that the new technology will regulate entry, ensuring that only authorised personnel gain access while expediting bureaucratic processes. On the surface, it appears to be a commendable move. Yet, beyond the rhetoric of efficiency and security lies a more troubling question: Will this system serve as an enabler of governance or a barrier that alienates the very citizens it is meant to serve?
The Mantralaya, as Maharashtra’s seat of power, has historically been a space where common citizens, especially those from rural or marginalised backgrounds, could physically access the corridors of decision-making. It is here that ordinary petitioners have sought direct redressal of their grievances, often bypassing bureaucratic hurdles to reach ministers and senior officials. This access, however imperfect, has been a crucial safeguard in a democracy where digital literacy and technological access remain unevenly distributed. By introducing a high-tech gatekeeping mechanism, the state risks reinforcing an already widening digital divide, privileging those who can navigate the new system over those who cannot.
The official justification for facial recognition technology is predicated on security. The argument is that by restricting entry to registered personnel, the government can weed out brokers and unauthorised middlemen who often exploit petitioners. It is a worthy goal. But technology alone cannot root out corruption or inefficiency, nor can it replace the accountability and trust that personal interactions with officials engender. A petitioner from rural Maharashtra, unfamiliar with digital systems, may now find themselves locked out of the very institution meant to address their grievances, while well-connected power brokers, builders and business magnates will still find their way in, as they always have.
The risks of such technological barriers are not theoretical. Across India, digitisation drives have often left the most vulnerable behind. The introduction of Aadhaar-based authentication for welfare schemes, for instance, was intended to streamline access and prevent fraud. Yet, in many cases, it became an obstacle for those lacking proper documentation or facing technical errors. The same risk looms over the new security measures at the Mantralaya. What happens when a daily wage worker, seeking justice for unpaid wages, is denied entry because their facial recognition data is not properly registered? Or when an elderly farmer from Vidarbha, unversed in the intricacies of online registration, finds himself shut out from reaching officials?
Too often, the allure of digital governance is seen as a substitute for systemic reform. But AI-powered surveillance will not fix a culture of bureaucratic opacity. To be sure, the government is within its rights to upgrade security at such a critical establishment. Recent years have seen instances where lax oversight has led to security breaches. But striking a balance between security and accessibility is imperative. Technology must facilitate governance, not fortify barriers between the government and its citizens.
Comments