Amid growing national debates on identity verification, internal security, and the misuse of state-issued documents, the Kerala Cabinet has decided in principle to issue a permanent Nativity Card with the holder’s photograph affixed. The proposed card is intended to replace the existing Nativity Certificate for government and social purposes and is being projected as a lifelong, legally authentic document.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said the Cabinet had resolved the matter in principle, stating that many people currently face anxiety and difficulty in proving their identity and place of birth. He said individuals should be able to establish that they were born in a particular place and are permanent residents of the state, adding that no one should be ousted and that there must be an authentic and legal document for this purpose.
The Chief Minister said the existing Nativity Certificate only reflects the birth of an individual and the period of residence and does not carry legal sanctity. At present, people are required to obtain the certificate multiple times. The proposed Nativity Card, he said, would have lifelong validity and could be used for official government purposes. Tehsildars will be entrusted with the responsibility of issuing the cards.
However, the move has drawn strong opposition from the Bharatiya Janata Party. Senior BJP leader and former Union Minister V. Muraleedharan questioned the constitutional authority of the Kerala government to introduce what he termed an extra-constitutional document. He alleged that the initiative was a CPM tactic aimed at mobilising funds ahead of elections and was reacting to the Chief Minister’s public statement on issuing Nativity Cards.
Muraleedharan pointed out that Bharat already has a legally sanctioned Unique Identity system in the form of Aadhaar, enacted by Parliament, and asked whether the Pinarayi Vijayan-led regime was attempting to challenge the authenticity and primacy of Aadhaar by introducing a parallel identity document.
Questioning the legal validity of the proposed card, Muraleedharan asked under which Article of the Constitution of India the Kerala government proposed to act. He asked whether the move was based on any constitutional sanction or merely an administrative decision, and whether it marked the beginning of a contractual arrangement with private entities.
Drawing parallels with earlier decisions of the Kerala government, Muraleedharan cited the expenditure of nearly ₹75 crore on erecting ‘yellow pillars’ across the state for the now-stalled SilverLine railway project, which are now being dismantled at additional cost. He said such funds did not come from the Chief Minister’s personal resources but from ordinary taxpayers, alleging that the Nativity Card proposal would similarly drain public money. He claimed there were growing public doubts that the declaration was linked to contracts or arrangements aimed at raising party funds ahead of the forthcoming Assembly elections.
Critics have further flagged a broader concern that the Kerala government, led by the Communist regime, has frequently adopted policies at odds with Central frameworks. They have raised serious apprehensions that such state-specific identity cards could be misused during issuance, particularly in the context of illegal settlers and Bangladeshi infiltrators, thereby complicating internal security, demographic accountability, and national interests. These concerns, they argue, make the proposed Nativity Card not merely an administrative change but a move with far-reaching constitutional and security implications.
