The Supreme Court debates the ECI’s use of Aadhaar in voter verification, questioning its validity as proof of citizenship. Key concerns include exclusion risks and legal limitations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a recent development on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India delivered interim relief in a highly contested case concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The Election Commission (EC), which had earlier excluded Aadhaar cards, Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs), and ration cards from the list of accepted ID proofs, has now been directed to consider these documents as valid identity proofs for the ongoing revision exercise.
The court’s direction comes in the wake of widespread concerns from Opposition parties and civil rights groups who alleged that the EC’s narrow list of 11 approved documents could potentially disenfranchise over 3 crore voters, especially the poor, marginalised, and those without exclusive access to official documentation.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi did not declare the EC’s list unconstitutional. Still, it emphasized that the matter involved a core democratic concern that required detailed deliberation. “This goes to the very root of democracy,” the bench observed, while scheduling the next hearing on July 28.
The bench issued a crucial clarification, while the EC is free to discard Aadhaar, EPIC, or ration card in individual cases, such rejection must be backed by strong reasons, which must be communicated to the concerned person.
“If you have good reason to discard, you are free to discard, but you must give reasons,” the court said, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness.
Initially, the EC resisted including Aadhaar, arguing that it could not be accepted as proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court was quick to rebut this claim, noting that citizenship determination lies within the domain of the Union Home Ministry, not the EC.
Interestingly, the court also questioned the logic behind excluding Aadhaar, especially since it is required for obtaining documents like caste certificates, which were part of the EC’s list of 11 accepted documents.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, later clarified that the list was only illustrative and not exhaustive, an assurance that paved the way for the court to allow Aadhaar, EPICs, and ration cards as additional valid documents.
As the matter moves forward, the Supreme Court has identified three key constitutional and procedural questions for consideration:
- Does the Election Commission have the power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
- Is the procedure and manner in which the EC is conducting the SIR legally sound and just?
- Is the timing, given the upcoming Bihar elections in November, appropriate, especially with limited time for objections, draft list publication, and final roll preparation?
A wide coalition of political parties and civil society organisations have challenged the EC’s June 24 order that notified the SIR:
- Political Parties: Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, CPI, CPM, DMK, Samajwadi Party, Shiv Sena (Uddhav), and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha.
- Individuals: RJD MP Manoj Jha, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra.
- Rights Groups: Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).
- Senior Lawyers Appearing: Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioners; Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh for the EC
Aadhaar
Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identification number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on behalf of the Government of India.
It serves as proof of identity and address for individuals residing anywhere in the country. The Aadhaar card is a biometric document that stores an individual’s data in a centralized government database.
It can be issued to any person who has resided in India for more than six consecutive months, including foreign nationals, provided they submit one of the 18 prescribed identity documents along with valid address proof.
The Aadhaar number is increasingly used to access services such as banking, telecom, and various government and non-government schemes, enhancing the ease of identity verification across sectors.
Usage of Aadhaar as Proof of Citizenship or Date of Birth:
The Election Commission of India has explicitly recognized Aadhaar as valid proof of date of birth during the process of voter enrollment, although it is not proof of citizenship.
This usage raises legal and procedural debates, especially in light of new disclaimers printed on Aadhaar cards that clarify it cannot be used to establish citizenship. These contradictions pose potential challenges to administrative practices that rely on Aadhaar for identity verification in electoral and citizenship-linked exercises.
Privacy and Security Concerns:
Aadhaar requires the collection and storage of sensitive biometric data, including fingerprints, iris scans, and facial images, within a centralized database.
This raises substantial privacy risks, including data breaches, identity theft, and concerns over mass surveillance by state or private actors. Despite statutory protections, the scale and sensitivity of the data make Aadhaar a focal point in India’s ongoing privacy discourse.
Issues with Biometric Authentication:
The reliance on biometric verification for accessing services under Aadhaar has also led to systemic exclusions. Technical limitations such as authentication failures, poor-quality biometric data, and inadequate infrastructure often result in denial of services, disproportionately affecting the elderly, manual laborers, and rural populations.
These challenges highlight the need for robust safeguards, alternative mechanisms, and greater accountability in the use of Aadhaar-based identification systems.
Citizenship
Citizenship in India denotes the legal status of an individual’s membership in the Indian state, conferring specific rights and duties.
The concept is governed primarily by the Citizenship Act, 1955, which outlines five modes of acquiring citizenship: by birth, descent, registration, naturalization, and incorporation of territory. It also provides for the loss of citizenship through termination, deprivation, and voluntary renunciation.
The Indian Constitution, under Part II (Articles 5 to 11), lays the foundational framework for citizenship, which is a subject under the Union List, thereby placing it under the exclusive legislative domain of Parliament.
Additionally, a birth certificate in India, issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, not only serves as proof of age and identity but also acts as an important supporting document for establishing Indian citizenship, provided the birth is registered within 21 days of its occurrence.
Use of Aadhaar as an Identity Document?
The status and evidentiary value of Aadhaar have been clarified through various judicial decisions and official memoranda.
The Bombay High Court, in State of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) (2022), held that Aadhaar serves only as proof of identity and residence, and not as proof of citizenship or date of birth.
This position aligns with the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), wherein the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, while emphasizing its limitations. Specifically, the Court referred to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, which states,
“The Aadhaar number or the authentication thereof shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile.”
Furthermore, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, through a 2018 memorandum, clarified that Aadhaar is “not a proof of date of birth”, since the date entered is based on documents submitted by the applicant.
Supporting this interpretation, the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in January 2024 issued a circular deleting Aadhaar from the list of documents acceptable as proof of date of birth, citing its lack of independent evidentiary value in that regard.
Findings of the Supreme Court in the Recent Development
In a batch of Public Interest Litigations challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Supreme Court noted the seriousness of the issues involved, particularly the potential impact on the right to vote, which the Court described as foundational to democracy.
“An important question has been raised… The question, petitioners would argue, goes to the very root of the functioning of a democracy – the question of ‘Right to Vote’ of the electorate.”
The petitioners argued that the Election Commission’s June 24, 2025, order restricted identity verification to 11 specified documents, potentially excluding many legitimate voters who lacked those documents.
In response, the Election Commission clarified through Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi that the list of 11 documents was not exhaustive but illustrative. Acknowledging this submission, the Court issued an interim observation:
“Since the list is not exhaustive, in our prima facie opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the Election Commission of India also considers the following three documents… i.e., A) Aadhar Card; B) Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC)… and C) the Ration Card.”
The Court thus held that the EC may proceed by law, but must consider Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration card in addition to the 11 documents already listed.
Importantly, while the Court did not stay the SIR exercise at this stage, it allowed petitioners to renew the request for stay depending on the EC’s response in the next hearing:
“There is no occasion presently to pass any order on the ad interim stay applications, and the petitioners in any case do not press for a stay at this stage. Depending on the reply… the petitioners would always be at liberty to press their plea for stay…”
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. versus Election Commission of India
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Bihar Voter Roll Revision
