Supreme Court Defends Aadhaar as Identity Proof for Electoral Roll Revisions
The Supreme Court of India has robustly defended the use of Aadhaar as a valid identity document for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, drawing parallels with other government-issued documents like passports. During a hearing on Wednesday, the court addressed multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the SIR exercise, with the proceedings set to resume on Thursday.
Court Questions Argument Against Aadhaar Based on Private Involvement
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of a two-judge bench, questioned the argument that Aadhaar should not be accepted for electoral rolls because it is prepared by private entities. He pointed out that even passport issuance is outsourced to private agencies under government auspices. "Do you know that even your passport (issuance) is also outsourced to a privately run agency under the auspices of the government of India? Then?" Justice Bagchi remarked, emphasizing that private involvement does not inherently invalidate a document's reliability.
Clarification on Aadhaar and Citizenship
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing Advocate Ashwani Upadhyay, argued that the Aadhaar Act explicitly states Aadhaar is not evidence of citizenship or domicile. He highlighted concerns about Aadhaar saturation exceeding 100% in some states and noted that Aadhaar can be issued to anyone residing in India for 182 days or more, often with minimal documentation like a letter from a local corporator. However, Justice Bagchi countered by questioning whether other prescribed documents, such as land records, are immune to forgery. "You can argue that an Aadhaar card can always be a forged document and is within the scope of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to verify its authenticity," he said, adding that in issuing Aadhaar, private individuals discharge a public duty.
Statutory Acknowledgment and Purpose of SIR
Justice Bagchi clarified that the Supreme Court never intended Aadhaar to prove citizenship. Instead, if Aadhaar is acknowledged as an identity document under the Representation of the People's Act (RPA), it should be considered for electoral rolls. "In our understanding, there is a clear nexus with the purpose which the Commission is seeking to achieve through the SIR," he stated. He explained that the 11 documents prescribed by the Election Commission of India (ECI), including land records, need not directly relate to citizenship but serve various purposes under the ECI's powers.
Dispute Over Government Authority in Citizenship Decisions
The court also disputed an argument by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented petitioners questioning the SIR exercise. Sibal contended that only the Central government should decide on citizenship doubts regarding voters. Justice Bagchi responded that it is the ERO's responsibility to decide such matters for removing names from electoral lists, though he noted the Chief Justice of India had emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in such powers.
Reasons for SIR and Broader Concerns
Justice Bagchi cited migration as a key reason for the SIR, requiring simultaneous verification across multiple constituencies. Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted that corrections, including deletions and additions, are essential due to factors like deaths, migration, and age changes since 2003. Sibal argued that annual updates already address these issues, while activist Yogendra Yadav raised concerns about "design defects" in the SIR process. The hearing is scheduled to continue, with further deliberations expected on these complex legal and administrative matters.
