Today, On 8th September, in the Bihar SIR Row ,ECI Clarified that It Is “Not Considering Aadhaar as Proof of Citizenship”; Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi Says Aadhaar Can Be Used Only as Resident Identity, Not Citizenship Document
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s June 24, 2025 order directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, only months ahead of the state assembly elections.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
During hearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its stand on Aadhaar.
He told the Bench that officers have even been penalised for accepting Aadhaar cards from voters.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had issued show cause notices to officers for accepting Aadhaar cards.
The Bench, led by Justice Kant, sought to see the notice, while the ECI’s counsel Rakesh Dwivedi denied having it. Sibal countered that it was an official document signed by the electoral registration officer.
Justice Kant also pointed out that there was a plea filed by Vaibhav Mishra. Sibal expressed concern that the issue of Aadhaar was being mishandled, stressing that the situation was urgent and shocking.
He recalled that on July 10, the Supreme Court had already directed the ECI to consider Aadhaar along with the EPIC issued by the Commission and ration cards for electoral purposes.
Justice Kant sought clarity by asking,
“What you want Aadhaar card to be accepted as? Conclusive proof of citizenship?”
Sibal clarified,
“BLO can’t decide citizenship. Proof of residence. They are not accepting Aadhaar for 65 lakhs also. ECI has directed the officials. Let Aadhaar be accepted if I am on voter list … By another order of SC.. public notice had to state that grievance to be submitted along with their Aadhaar cards. It was said take Aadhaar into account. They are refusing to take Aadhaar into account. BLOs instructed that one of the 11 documents needed. ECI penalising officers for accepting documents outside the 11.”
Sibal then read out a notice and said, “They say no other document apart from 11 and no Aadhaar. This is despite three orders of this court.” The Bench discussed the issue.
Continuing, Sibal told the court,
“Disciplinary action has been initiated against the BLOs. Now they say Aadhaar will not be accepted. The document which is universal in nature not being accepted. There are 24 affidavits of electors from separate districts saying the same thing.”
Justice Kant intervened again, asking,
“There is an exercise going on. Can you rely only on Aadhaar?”
Sibal responded that he was already on the electoral rolls of 2025, but now the authorities were insisting on only 11 specified documents and excluding Aadhaar.
Speaking for the Election Commission of India, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued,
“Aadhaar can be filed. It can be digitally uploaded and online also it can be done. The only thing is we are not considering Aadhaar as a proof of citizenship. We are refuting the submission of the other side…that ECI does not have the power to determine citizenship issue for the purpose of electoral rolls. I can show provision of Constitution.”
Justice Bagchi also remarked,
“Aadhaar can be given as resident identity … I am sure you will not argue that Aadhaar is alien to the representation of peoples act and the act also shows the document as document of identity.”
Dwivedi maintained that Aadhaar could not be treated as proof of citizenship. In response, Sibal urged the Election Commission to issue a circular to resolve the confusion.
However, Dwivedi pressed the court to settle the matter, pointing out that the objection of not being able to determine citizenship was repeatedly raised.
Earlier, On August 6, the Court learned that 6.5 million names were removed from the draft electoral roll published on August 1. The ECI assured the Court that no names would be removed without prior notice, an opportunity for a hearing, and a reasoned order from the appropriate authority.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), On 24 June 2025, started a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar before the Assembly elections. Under this process, voters were asked to provide updated documents, but many citizens did not have them.
Opposition parties and several NGOs criticised this move, saying it could deprive a large number of genuine voters of their right to vote. They approached the Supreme Court (SC), calling the ECI’s action arbitrary and against the Constitution.
The Commission, On 1 August 2025, released the draft electoral roll, which showed a total of 7.24 crore registered voters. At the same time, around 65 lakh names were removed from the list.
Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), requested the Supreme Court to order the ECI to make public the full list of voters whose names were dropped, along with the reasons for each deletion. They said that without such transparency, many citizens might lose their right to vote without being given a fair chance to object.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bihar SIR Row