‘Aadhaar not proof of citizenship’: SC agrees with EC as it hears Bihar voter roll re
‘Aadhaar not proof of citizenship’: SC agrees with EC as it hears Bihar voter roll revision case
M.U.H
13/08/202534
The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing petitions against the Election Commission’s (EC) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, with Justice Surya Kant stating that Aadhaar cannot be treated as proof of citizenship.
The Supreme Court observed that the inclusion and exclusion of citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls falls within the remit of the EC.
“Are petitioners saying that Aadhaar card is proof of citizenship? They are not saying that it is not a measure… the Aadhaar Act says so,” Bar and Bench quoted Justice Surya Kant as saying.
He added, “See, the Election Commission is correct in saying that Aadhaar can't be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship; it has to be verified. See section 9 of the Aadhaar Act.”
The apex court, however, did not agree with the submission that the people in Bihar do not have the majority of documents sought by the ECI as proof during the SIR.
"This is a case of trust deficiency that's all," Justice Kant remarked during the hearing.
The bench said the first issue to be settled was whether the Election Commission had the authority to conduct the verification exercise, reported India Today. "If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can't be a problem," Justice Kant said.
Appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Jha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the EC’s procedure would result in large-scale voter exclusion, particularly affecting those unable to submit the required forms.
He claimed that even voters listed in the 2003 rolls were being asked to file fresh forms, with non-submission leading to deletion of names despite no change in their address.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed, “If out of 7.9 crore voters, 7.24 crore voters responded, it demolishes the theory of one crore voters missing.”
Calling it “largely a case of trust deficit, nothing else”, the court asked the EC to be ready with “facts and figures” — including the number of voters before the exercise, number of dead voters earlier and now, and other details.
Kapil Sibal flagged discrepancies, citing cases where voters declared dead were found alive, and living persons were listed as dead.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the EC, said some “defects here and there” were inevitable in such an exercise, but errors could be corrected as it was only a draft roll. He said around 6.5 crore people did not have to submit documents as they or their parents were on the 2003 rolls.
Advocate Vrinda Grover called the revision “an unlawful exercise which lies within the bounds of parliament”.
Activist Yogendra Yadav slammed the drive as “the largest exercise of disenfranchisement in the history of the world”, claiming “65 lakh names have been deleted. Never in the history of India has this happened.”
He alleged, “When I file an appeal for not including my name, it is decided after the list is frozen — and then, best of luck after five years. This is dreadful. We also have confirmation that more names of women have been deleted than men — 31 lakh women, 25 lakh men.”
Yadav also questioned procedural changes, the 2003 precedent, and the assumption of inflated rolls, calling it “an exercise in intensive deletion” and warning that “vast exclusion has already begun”.
The draft roll was published on August 1, and the final roll is scheduled for release on September 30.
Opposition leaders, including Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Congress’ KC Venugopal, NCP (Sharad Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, CPI leader D Raja, SP leader Harinder Singh Malik, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant, JMM leader Sarfraz Ahmed, and CPI(ML) leader Dipankar Bhattacharya, have challenged the exercise, alleging it could disenfranchise crores of eligible voters.
Several civil society groups, including PUCL, ADR, and activists like Yogendra Yadav, have also moved the court against the EC order.
