Supreme Court of India declined PIL on Aadhaar enrolment reforms, directing petitioner to government. Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said executive should examine concerns.
The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking major changes to the Aadhaar enrolment process. The petition included a suggestion that new Aadhaar numbers be issued only to children up to six years of age. A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petitioner’s apprehensions are better addressed by the executive and, accordingly, indicated that the matter should be considered by the government.
The PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay through Advocate-on-Record Ashwani Kumar Dubey. It alleged that the Aadhaar system is being misused by illegal infiltrators, who are said to obtain Aadhaar and thereafter access welfare schemes meant for Indian citizens. The petition sought directions to UIDAI to confine fresh enrolments to young children, and to impose tighter verification standards for adolescents and adults.
Aadhaar, administered by UIDAI, is a unique identification number generated using biometric and demographic information and is commonly used to avail government subsidies, benefits, and services. The petitioner argued that the current enrolment model permits non-citizens to obtain Aadhaar by presenting themselves as “residents.” Once they become part of the Aadhaar-based identity ecosystem, it is alleged that they can then procure other documents such as ration cards, domicile certificates, and driving licences.
The PIL stated that more than 144 crore Aadhaar numbers have already been issued and that Aadhaar now covers nearly the entire population. On that basis, it contended that limiting new enrolment to children would not harm genuine citizens, while introducing stronger scrutiny for future enrolments. The petition further alleged that the verification procedure is “weak and easily manipulable,” allowing infiltrators to later portray themselves as citizens. According to the petitioner, this leads to diversion of public funds, denial of benefits to rightful recipients, and dilution of targeted welfare delivery.
The petition also characterised Aadhaar as a “gateway document,” arguing that once obtained, it can be used to obtain multiple other identity documents making it progressively harder to distinguish citizens from non-citizens. Therefore, the PIL requested directions for the installation of display boards at Common Service Centres and other enrolment locations, clearly informing the public that Aadhaar is proof of identity only and does not establish citizenship, address, or date of birth.
ALSO READ: Can Aadhaar Determine Citizenship? Supreme Court Debates ECI’s Voter Verification Methods
In addition, the petition proposed mandatory declarations by applicants confirming that their information is accurate and acknowledging criminal consequences for submitting false details. It further sought public display of penalties for procuring Aadhaar and other official documents through forged means, and prayed for a declaration that sentences for such offences should run consecutively.
Raising broader constitutional concerns, the petitioner argued that the Aadhaar framework has become arbitrary because it allegedly fails to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, thereby violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It also flagged issues connected with electoral integrity under Articles 326 and 327.
To bolster the submission, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, where illegal migration was described as a form of external aggression and internal disturbance. The petitioner stated that the cause of action arose in March 2026, when the petitioner allegedly became aware of how infiltrators obtain Aadhaar through existing processes, raising concerns about internal security, demographic impact, and misuse of welfare schemes.
The PIL sought, among other reliefs: limiting new Aadhaar issuance to children; prescribing stringent norms for older applicants; ensuring conspicuous public notices about Aadhaar’s limited evidentiary value; requiring applicant declarations; displaying penalties for fraudulent procurement of identity documents; and requiring consecutive imposition of punishments for such offences.
Despite the detailed prayers, the Supreme Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 and did not grant any directions. The Court indicated that these are policy-oriented matters within the executive sphere and should be addressed by the government.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE