Supreme Court Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde slammed the ECI for rejecting Aadhaar in voter verification, calling it illogical. His remark, “Is Aadhaar only for OYO rooms?”, highlights the rising debate over Aadhaar’s role in electoral roll revisions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark hearing that touches the very core of democratic rights, the Supreme Court of India recently examined the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The process, intended to clean up voter records ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections, has come under intense scrutiny for excluding Aadhaar and Voter ID cards from its list of accepted documents for verification.
Amid the heated legal debate, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde delivered a searing remark that has since gone viral: “Then what is Aadhaar for? To buy SIM cards and check into OYO rooms?”
ALSO READ: Can Aadhaar Determine Citizenship? Supreme Court Debates ECI’s Voter Verification Methods
This piercing question struck a chord with citizens, legal experts, and policy analysts alike, reviving the larger conversation around the purpose and relevance of Aadhaar in Indian governance.
Aadhaar and Its Constitutional Paradox
Hegde’s comment goes beyond sarcasm; it reflects a genuine concern over the Aadhaar project’s inconsistency in application. Introduced as a unique identity mechanism aimed at empowering welfare access and streamlining citizen services, Aadhaar today stands in a legal grey zone when it comes to its role in verifying citizenship and voting rights.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken the stance that Aadhaar cannot be used to prove citizenship. This argument, while technically valid (since Aadhaar only verifies identity and residence), seems contradictory when Aadhaar is accepted for banking, mobile connections, travel, and welfare subsidies, but not for confirming voter legitimacy.
As Hegde rightly implies, how can Aadhaar be valid for nearly all crucial civic transactions but not for exercising the most fundamental democratic right, the right to vote?
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, led by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, refused to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Bihar but raised serious concerns regarding its timing, methodology, and potential democratic implications.
The bench questioned why such a high-stakes verification exercise was being conducted just months ahead of the Assembly elections, pointing out that the compressed timeline could leave little scope for rectifying errors.
The Court also expressed concern over the exclusion of commonly accepted identity documents such as Aadhaar, Voter ID (EPIC), and ration cards from the list of valid documents for verification, asking the Election Commission of India (ECI) to justify their omission.
Most critically, the Court warned that once electoral rolls are finalised, citizens who are wrongfully excluded may have no meaningful legal recourse before elections, posing a significant risk of disenfranchisement.
While the court accepted the constitutional validity of revising electoral rolls to eliminate non-citizens, it questioned the manner and timing of the operation. It asked the ECI to justify the exclusion of key documents and to ensure that the process does not unfairly impact eligible voters.
The move has drawn fierce criticism from opposition leaders and legal minds alike. Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal echoed Hegde’s sentiment, arguing that the burden of proving citizenship cannot be placed on the voter, especially when proof like Aadhaar or consistent past voting history is dismissed as irrelevant.
“Who are they (ECI) to say we are citizens or not?”
Sibal questioned in court.
The petitioners called the drive a de facto citizenship screening, warning that it undermines democratic participation under the guise of verification.
Sanjay Hegde’s statement lays bare a larger trust deficit. If Aadhaar can’t be used where it matters most, the electoral process, as he said,
“What the Election Commission of India is saying that Aadhaar can’t be used for voting, it defeats the whole purpose with which Aadhaar was introduced?”
READ TWEET HERE