Supreme Court Questions Exclusion of Aadhaar as Citizenship Proof in Bihar Voter List Revision: A Critical Examination

The Supreme Court of India has recently cast a critical eye on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to not accept Aadhaar as a valid document for proving citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar. This development, unfolding just months before the crucial October-November state polls, raises significant concerns about potential disenfranchisement and the fairness of the electoral process.

Aadhaar Citizenship Proof: The Core of the Legal Challenge

At the heart of the ongoing legal tussle is the contentious issue of Aadhaar Citizenship Proof. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing various petitioners, brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that Aadhaar is indeed an acceptable document under the Representation of Peoples Act. Despite this, the ECI has been unwilling to consider it valid for the Bihar SIR, sparking a debate on what constitutes adequate proof of citizenship for voting rights.

The ECI, through its lawyer Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, firmly contended that an Aadhaar Card cannot be used as definitive proof of citizenship. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court bench interjected, pointing out that the determination of citizenship primarily falls under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission. However, the ECI’s counsel invoked Article 326 of the Constitution, asserting the poll panel’s inherent power to verify citizenship for the purpose of granting voting rights. This divergence of views on the role of Aadhaar Citizenship Proof highlights a fundamental legal and administrative quandary.

Timeliness and Disenfranchisement Concerns Around Aadhaar Citizenship Proof

The Supreme Court bench, also comprising Justice Joymala Bagchi, expressed considerable apprehension regarding the timing of this intensive revision exercise. Initiated in late June, just a few months shy of the Bihar assembly elections, the revision process’s accelerated pace has raised eyebrows. The justices voiced concern that if individuals were denied their voting rights through this process, they would face an arduous and lengthy appeal procedure, effectively disenfranchising them for the imminent election. Justice Dhulia particularly emphasized the practical difficulties in a short timeframe, noting that even he would struggle to furnish all the mandated documents, underscoring the potential burden on ordinary citizens striving to provide Aadhaar Citizenship Proof or alternative documents.

Inconsistency in Accepting Aadhaar Citizenship Proof

A significant point of contention raised by the Court was the apparent inconsistency in the ECI’s stance on Aadhaar Citizenship Proof. The bench highlighted that an Aadhaar card is readily accepted for obtaining a caste certificate, which, in turn, is accepted for the SIR. Yet, the very document (Aadhaar) that facilitates the acquisition of an accepted document is itself rejected as a primary proof. This paradoxical situation fuels skepticism and raises questions about the transparency and logic behind the ECI’s guidelines concerning Aadhaar Citizenship Proof.

While acknowledging the vital importance of purging electoral rolls of non-citizens to maintain the integrity of the democratic process, the Supreme Court questioned the rapid and expedited nature of this process, especially its direct linkage to an impending election. The ECI lawyer offered an assurance to the court that no voter would be deleted from the rolls without due notice and a fair hearing, attempting to alleviate fears of arbitrary removals based on inadequate Aadhaar Citizenship Proof.

Petitioners’ Challenge to the Special Intensive Revision and Aadhaar Citizenship Proof

The Special Intensive Revision has been challenged by several petitioners, including the transparency group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Swaraj Party’s Yogendra Yadav, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. They have collectively labeled the SIR as “arbitrary” and “discriminative.” Their core argument revolves around the undue burden of proof placed on citizens, who are required to submit fresh applications and documentary evidence of citizenship by a stringent deadline of July 25, 2025.

The petitioners contend that, given Bihar’s demographic realities, particularly its high rates of internal migration and pervasive poverty, these stringent requirements could potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. Opposition politicians have echoed these concerns, alleging that the revision process, particularly its stance on Aadhaar Citizenship Proof and other documentation, could lead to the removal of a substantial number of legitimate voters from the electoral rolls.

Key Questions Posed by the Supreme Court on Aadhaar Citizenship Proof

The Supreme Court has directed three pivotal questions to the Election Commission of India, seeking clarity on:

1. The ECI’s exact authority to undertake a “special intensive revision” of voter lists.
2. The valid procedure and the complete list of required documents for such a revision, particularly concerning the acceptance of Aadhaar Citizenship Proof.
3. The rationale and justification behind the specific timing of this revision exercise, so close to the state elections.

The outcome of this Supreme Court intervention will significantly impact the electoral landscape of Bihar and potentially set precedents for future voter list revisions across the country. The debate surrounding Aadhaar Citizenship Proof will undoubtedly continue to be a focal point in safeguarding the democratic rights of citizens.