The Supreme Court has upheld the Election Commission’s stance that Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of citizenship during a hearing on Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The court addressed concerns of voter disenfranchisement while backing the ECI’s authority over voter list inclusion and exclusion.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday clarified that the Aadhaar card cannot be considered conclusive proof of Indian citizenship, affirming the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) stance on the matter. The observation came during the ongoing hearing of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi underscored that the authority to include or exclude individuals—citizens or non-citizens—from the electoral rolls lies squarely within the ECI’s constitutional mandate. “The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified,” the Bench remarked.
Concerns Over Disenfranchisement
The case was brought before the apex court by multiple petitioners concerned about the implications of the SIR process, particularly in Bihar, where elections are approaching. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the procedure could lead to widespread disenfranchisement, especially among vulnerable populations unable to provide the required documents.
“Most of the enlisted documents are not available to people in Bihar. That’s the point,” Sibal said, highlighting that the state’s poor and marginalised citizens could be disproportionately affected.
However, the Bench rejected the notion that residents of Bihar lack all forms of proof. “It is a very sweeping argument that in Bihar, nobody possesses these documents. Aadhaar and ration cards they have? There must be something to prove you are a citizen of India. Everybody possesses some certificate—you need it even to buy a SIM,” Justice Kant responded.
Legal Stand on Aadhaar’s Role
The judges emphasised that the Aadhaar Act itself clarifies that an Aadhaar number is not proof of citizenship. The court found that the ECI’s position aligns with the statute, which specifies that Aadhaar is primarily meant for establishing identity, not nationality.
The matter has drawn participation from several senior lawyers, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Prashant Bhushan, and Vrinda Grover, all of whom have raised concerns over transparency and voter rights during the SIR process.
ECI’s Affidavit Against Disclosure Demands
In a recent affidavit, the ECI opposed demands by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) to publish constituency and booth-wise details of around 65 lakh electors whose enumeration forms were not submitted. ADR had sought two specific directions:
-
Publication of omitted electors list – Detailing constituency and booth-wise names with reasons for omission, such as death, permanent migration, duplication, or being untraceable.
-
Disclosure of non-recommended forms – Revealing the names of electors whose enumeration forms were “not recommended” by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
The ECI argued that neither the Representation of the People Act, 1950, nor the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, requires the creation or public dissemination of such lists. The poll body maintained that its practices are in compliance with existing legal provisions and that unnecessary disclosure could compromise the integrity of the revision process.
Next Hearing Scheduled
The Supreme Court is set to continue hearing the matter on Wednesday, where further arguments from both sides will be considered. Given that the Bihar elections are on the horizon, the verdict could have significant implications for voter verification protocols nationwide.
| Also Read: RG Kar Case: Father demands Zero FIR after Wife’s alleged Police Assault |
The case has sparked a wider debate about balancing electoral integrity with citizens’ rights, particularly in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. While the ECI maintains that its procedures safeguard against non-citizens being added to voter rolls, petitioners argue that the measures risk unjustly excluding legitimate voters who lack certain documents.
As the legal proceedings continue, the ruling on whether additional safeguards or disclosure requirements should be imposed could influence not only Bihar’s upcoming elections but also the broader framework for electoral roll management in India.
