Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that an Aadhaar card cannot be considered standalone proof of citizenship. This position was reaffirmed in recent court proceedings, notably in matters related to the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Recent Supreme Court Stance
In hearings concerning the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Supreme Court supported the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) position that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. Referring to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, the Court emphasized that an Aadhaar number does not confer any right of citizenship or domicile. While Aadhaar is a valid identity document for various purposes, its use for voter verification must be paired with other documents and remains subject to further verification.
The Court ruled:
Aadhaar is not conclusive proof and must be verified.
The Court questioned the poll panel’s process for verifying electoral rolls in Bihar.
Petitioners warned of the risk of excluding large numbers of voters due to the fresh form mandate.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning on Aadhaar and Citizenship
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court endorsed the ECI’s stance that Aadhaar cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship, stressing that it must be independently verified.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant, during the hearing of petitions challenging Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stated, “The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified.”
The bench clarified that the first key question is whether the ECI holds the statutory power to undertake this verification. “If they don’t have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can’t be a problem,” remarked Justice Kant.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the poll panel's process would lead to large-scale voter exclusion, especially for those unable to submit the required forms. He noted that even voters from 2003 electoral rolls must reapply, or risk deletion, even if there is no change in residence.
According to Sibal, EC data shows 7.24 crore persons submitted forms, yet approximately 65 lakh names were excluded, sometimes without proper inquiry into deaths or migration. “They admit in their affidavit that they did not conduct any survey,” Sibal told the bench.
The bench asked how the figure of 65 lakh exclusions was arrived at and whether petitioners’ fears were based on verified facts or assumptions, noting that those who submitted forms were in the draft rolls.
Sibal claimed there were 7.9 crore voters in the 2025 list, of whom 4.9 crore were in the 2003 list, with 22 lakh recorded as deceased.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that the EC did not publish or disclose the list of voters excluded for death or migration, either in court or on its website.
The bench noted that if a voter submitted forms with Aadhaar and a ration card, the EC was required to verify the details, and the bench sought clarity on whether proper notification had been given about missing documentation.
Electoral Roll Revision in Bihar and Its Implications
The Supreme Court rejected demands from political parties to direct the EC to accept Aadhaar as sole citizenship proof for enrollment in Bihar’s voter list following SIR. The court emphasized that Aadhaar’s legal status cannot extend beyond what is specified in law. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which had previously held that Aadhaar can be used as an identity document with other specified documents, clarified: “Aadhaar will be one of the documents for verification.”
Prashant Bhushan argued that the EC did not accept Aadhaar as proof for the 65 lakh deleted names despite court orders. The bench answered, “We cannot enhance Aadhaar’s status beyond what is ascribed to it by the Aadhaar Act. We also cannot go beyond what was said by the five-judge bench in the Puttaswamy judgment.” Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act states: “The Aadhaar number or the authentication thereof shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile in respect of an Aadhaar number holder”.
The September 2018 Puttaswamy judgment also noted that “An Aadhaar number also does not, by itself, constitute a conferment of a right of citizenship, or domicile.”
When petitioners pressed to elevate Aadhaar from a biometric identity to citizenship proof for voter registration, the bench responded, “Why so much emphasis on Aadhaar? We will not pass an order that Aadhaar card is the final proof of citizenship.”
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the EC pointed out “Aadhaar saturation of 140%” in certain districts, indicating possible misuse, including illegal migrants and Rohingyas acquiring Aadhaar fraudulently.
The bench advised political parties to help identify wrongly excluded voters and assist them in filing claims for inclusion in the final rolls.
Conclusion
During the hearing, the bench remarked, “This is largely a case of trust deficiency, nothing else.” The Court asked ECI to be prepared with detailed statistics: the pre-SIR voter count, the tally of deceased voters, data on inclusions and exclusions.
ECI defended its revision, citing demographic changes, migration, and the need to correct inaccuracies in rolls overdue for revision. It asserted powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. In its latest affidavit (August 9), the EC stressed that laws do not require it to publish reasons for every excluded name.
Reference
Economic times.
Hindustan times.
Live law .
Outlook india.
