The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar cannot be used as proof of citizenship and can only serve as proof of identity. The ECI clarified this position during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision process Phase 2.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that Aadhaar cannot be utilized as proof of citizenship but should only serve as proof of identity during the current Phase II of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
This clarification arises as the revision encompasses nearly 51 crore voters across nine states and three Union Territories.
The ECI submitted a detailed counter affidavit in response to a petition by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, who requested that Aadhaar be strictly used for verifying identity under Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, and should not be accepted as proof of date of birth.
He contended that the use of Aadhaar for age verification in Form-6, as per the Registration of Electors Rules, contradicted the UIDAI’s notification dated August 22, 2023.
The affidavit, filed by ECI Secretary Santosh Kumar Dubey, indicated that he was well-acquainted with the case records and authorized to affirm the Commission’s response.
He stated that he had “carefully traversed the contents of the interlocutory application” and denied all allegations in full, except where explicitly admitted.
The petitioner sought clarity that the Aadhaar number should only be utilized to establish identity, arguing that its use as proof of date of birth in Form-6 was arbitrary and inconsistent with UIDAI notifications from August 22 and December 12, 2023.
The Commission categorically rejected these assertions, noting that the issues raised had been previously addressed in its earlier counter affidavit related to the main writ petition, making additional reproduction unnecessary for brevity.
The ECI defended the legal framework governing Aadhaar’s application:
- The Commission stated that Aadhaar is legally allowed for confirming identity and for authentication tied to voter registration processes, referencing Section 23(4) of the RPA, 1950, which aims to enhance the precision of electoral rolls.
- It argued that UIDAI notifications do not prohibit Aadhaar from being used as supplementary documentation, characterizing the plea’s interpretation as “an incorrect reading” of those documents.
- The Commission explained that the challenge fails to grasp the intent of Form-6, clarifying that Aadhaar is not the sole or mandatory evidence of date of birth; it is merely one of many acceptable documents, thereby rendering claims of arbitrariness unfounded.
- It also reiterated that no admissions are to be presumed by omission, and every argument from the applicant stands denied unless explicitly accepted. Asserting that the reliefs sought are “wholly unwarranted,” the ECI maintained the existing statutory framework including the amended RPA, Registration of Electors Rules, and Aadhaar authentication protocol is constitutionally valid and essential for maintaining accurate electoral rolls.
Last month, the ECI assured the Supreme Court that it is committed to ensuring that only Indian citizens are included in the revised electoral rolls of Bihar. This response addressed concerns raised about the potential inclusion of undocumented migrants from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Rohingya, and Bangladesh.
The detailed counter-affidavit was submitted by Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar, who emphasized the Commission’s adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Kumar noted that the ECI has followed all Supreme Court directives regarding identity document verification, including Aadhaar, for confirming voters’ identities.
The affidavit stated,
“Aadhaar is being used solely as proof of identity and not as evidence of citizenship. The statutory mandate under the RP Act, 1950, is being fully complied with to ensure that only eligible Indian citizens participate in the electoral process,”
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row