The Citizenship ID debate intensifies as the government stays silent on valid proof in Lok Sabha, while the Supreme Court examines 65 lakh Bihar voter list deletions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On August 12, 2025, the MHA responded in the Lok Sabha to a question by CPI-L member Sudama Prasad regarding the categories of valid documents required to prove Indian citizenship. Interestingly, the Ministry did not specify the exact documents, instead reiterating that citizenship is governed under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and its rules.
The questions raised included:
- Categories of valid documents required to prove citizenship in India.
- The total number of birth certificates issued nationwide over the last 25 years.
- Reports on low coverage of birth and death certificate issuance by states.
Minister of State for Home, Nityanand Rai, stated that Indian citizenship can be acquired in multiple ways:
- By birth (Section 3)
- By descent (Section 4)
- By registration (Section 5)
- By naturalization (Section 6)
- By incorporation of territory (Section 7)
While the rules specify eligibility for citizenship, the Ministry did not provide a specific list of admissible documents.
Birth and Death Registration in India
The Ministry highlighted that birth and death registration is governed by the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Reports are compiled annually in the ‘Vital Statistics of India based on the Civil Registration System (CRS)‘.
However, several historical gaps were noted:
- Bihar: Missing data for 1998–1999
- Uttar Pradesh & Uttarakhand: Missing data for 2001; Uttarakhand missing 2002–2003
- Tripura: Missing 2005, 2007–2009
- Jammu & Kashmir: Missing 2012
- Manipur & Meghalaya: Missing 2016
Currently, a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is underway in Bihar, with birth certificates among the 11 documents accepted for voter registration.
National Identity Cards and Citizenship Verification
Earlier, on August 5, 2025, the Ministry had informed the Lok Sabha that the Citizenship Act mandates compulsory registration of every Indian citizen and issuance of National Identity Cards. These cards serve as proof of identity for those listed in the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) or the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Supreme Court’s Bihar Electoral Roll Hearing
On August 13, 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard multiple petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, a process also extended to West Bengal.
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that excluding Aadhaar from the list of 11 acceptable ID documents is discriminatory, stressing that the SIR is not merely an expansion of voter ID options but a substantive change. He alleged that 65 lakh names were removed from the rolls without following due process, with voters marked as deceased, shifted, absent, or duplicate based solely on a press note and enumeration forms, lacking a proper legal basis.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for ADR) called the exercise unprecedented in India’s history, without constitutional or statutory backing, warning against arbitrary cut-off dates. Prashant Bhushan alleged bad faith, pointing to the removal of draft rolls from public websites after a political press conference, while Shadan Farasat argued that the SIR illegally began with names already deleted, resulting in mass disenfranchisement.
The Court examined whether expanding acceptable ID documents from seven to eleven is inclusive or exclusionary when Aadhaar is omitted; if large-scale voter deletions without individual inquiry violate Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution; whether the ECI can rely on press notes and enumeration forms instead of formal statutory processes under Rule 4 of the Registration of Electors Rules; and whether using 2003 voter rolls as a baseline is legally valid.
The bench observed that expansion of ID documents could be “voter-friendly” if only one of the eleven is required, but “anti-voter” if all are demanded. It acknowledged that while Rule 4 allows procedural flexibility, variations must pass the test of reasonableness, framing the dispute as a constitutional right versus constitutional entitlement, the right to be registered versus the conditions for inclusion.
Petitioners also highlighted the human impact, citing wrongful deletions such as living voters marked deceased, marginalised communities facing disenfranchisement, difficulties for the homeless in verification, and procedural unfairness due to short timelines. In West Bengal, tensions escalated to the point where women attempted self-harm in protest over deletions.
The hearing will continue, with the bench granting more time for petitioners to complete their submissions.
Case Title:
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row
