The court clarified that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and that ECI officials shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card.
Published Sep 08, 2025 | 4:04 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 08, 2025 | 4:04 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission of India to issue instructions to its officials to accept Aadhaar as the ‘twelfth document’ in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The court clarified that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship but may be used for the purpose of identity, and that ECI officials can verify the authenticity of Aadhaar itself.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday, 8 September, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to treat Aadhaar as the “12th document” for establishing identity in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, LiveLaw reported.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, clarified that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and directed the ECI to immediately instruct its officials on its use in the process, adding that officials shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card itself.
The court was hearing multiple pleas challenging the ECI’s procedures during the SIR. With Bihar Assembly elections less than 100 days away, the ECI’s deletion of 65 lakh voters from the 7.9 crore electoral roll since 25 June has raised serious credibility concerns.
The revision, carried out in just 30 days, saw the ECI initially refusing to disclose names and reasons for deletions, prompting Supreme Court intervention. Later, the court ordered the poll body to publish the list and accept Aadhaar and voter IDs for appeals, stressing inclusion over exclusion.
The National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) has criticised the SIR, saying the requirement for voters not on the 2003 roll to prove eligibility with one of eleven documents, available to only about half the targeted population, could “deliberately disenfranchise millions.”
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr AM Singhvi, Shoeb Alam, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, appeared for the petitioners and urged the court to direct that Aadhaar, the most “widely available document”, be accepted as proof of residence. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the ECI.
“We are racing against time. Is Aadhaar acceptable? It has to be decided one way or the other. What they are doing is shocking!” said Advocate Sibal.
He clarified that the request was not for Aadhaar’s recognition as proof of citizenship but as proof of residence and identity, stating, “I only want Aadhaar to be accepted so I can vote… BLOs (Booth Level Officers) can’t anyway decide citizenship.”
Sibal further alleged that BLOs were committing contempt by ignoring previous Supreme Court orders.
“Instructions have been issued by ECI to not accept Aadhaar alone. BLOs are committing contempt… They have informed BLAs that they would still require one of the eleven documents,” he said, submitting signed affidavits as evidence.
“ECI penalising officers for accepting documents outside the eleven… BLOs issued show-cause notices for accepting documents other than the eleven.”
Justice Bagchi observed, “If you see those eleven (documents), apart from passport and birth certificates, none are conclusive proof of citizenship. We clarified saying include Aadhaar.”
The bench demanded that the ECI clarify its instructions. Justice Kant told the ECI’s counsel, “Law is very clear on Aadhaar. Aadhaar is one of the official documents. You will take it and examine it.”
In response, Advocate Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, maintained that the poll body was entitled to determine whether a person is a citizen for electoral roll revision.
“We don’t agree that ECI is not entitled to determine whether a person is citizen or not for purposes of electoral roll revision. We are entitled to look into it for purpose of electoral roll,” he told the court. He added, “Aadhaar can be proof of identity, not citizenship.”
The court also took strong exception to the ECI not following its earlier directions. Justice Bagchi, examining a copy of a show-cause notice issued by the ECI and presented as evidence by the petitioners, pressed the poll body: “Why does this translated copy of show-cause refer only to the eleven documents? We have repeatedly ordered that the list illustratively indicates eleven documents… include Aadhaar.”
Dwivedi responded that an overwhelming majority of voters were able to provide the eleven documents and only a small fraction could not. “ECI has laid emphasis on 11 documents… every person has been able to produce the documents… this Aadhaar business is only for identity,” he said.
Justice Bagchi countered that the ECI had gone beyond the specified documents in its own manual for the SIR and asked whether the poll body was conscious of its inclusive role. Dwivedi replied that the process should “not be over-inclusive.”
The court reaffirmed, “In our opinion, it’s not ‘over-inclusive’.”
The petitioners pressed that the ECI officially publicise the order, but counsel for the poll body said it was not required and that the ECI was only obliged to issue instructions.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
