Forgery no ground to reject Aadhaar, observes SC

Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Election Commission can’t ignore Aadhaar as proof on the possibility of forgery and cannot be a ground to reject the 12-digit biometric identifier, backed by the law. The Supreme Court was resuming the argument on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) by the Election Commission. Observing that even passports are processed through private agencies performing public duties, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “If a document is recognised by statute, it cannot be discarded merely because a private entity is involved in its issuance.”

The Supreme Court was responding to the EC’s arguments on the admissibility of Aadhaar and the Voter ID card, citing the chances of forgery on these documents. The ECI has defended the SIR exercise, maintaining that Aadhaar and voter identity cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, arguing in favour of the exercise, submitted that Aadhaar cannot be relied upon for determining citizenship, noting that under the Aadhaar Act, even foreign nationals residing in India for 182 days are eligible for enrolment and that the statute expressly clarifies that Aadhaar does not confer citizenship or domicile.

Justice Bagchi countered that the possibility of forgery cannot be a ground to reject Aadhaar alone, observing that even passports are processed through private agencies performing public duties. Hansaria maintained that no petitioner had sought the inclusion of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship and argued that the court could not issue a mandamus without such a prayer.

When senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, alleged mass deletions of names from the voter list, the CJI said, “Additions and deletions are part of the electoral roll revision exercise.” In their rejoinder submissions, the petitioners questioned the transparency, timing and legal basis of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

The bench heard rejoinder submissions from senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Prashant Bhushan, Vijay Hansaria and petitioner-in-person, Yogendra Yadav.

The court had commenced final arguments in the matter on August 12 last year, when it observed that inclusion or exclusion of names in electoral rolls falls within the constitutional remit of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Sibal argued that while the poll panel has plenary powers under Article 324 to conduct elections, the determination of citizenship lies exclusively with the Union government under the Citizenship Act.

“Who decides if I am a citizen of India? It is the Government of India, not the Election Commission,” Sibal said, relying on Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution. He also contended that electoral registration officers (EROs) cannot effectively decide citizenship while processing objections or deletions under Form 7.

Justice Bagchi observed that exclusion from electoral rolls does not amount to loss of citizenship per se, but Sibal responded that the practical effect of such exclusions was disenfranchisement without due adjudication by the competent authority. Sibal stressed the “enormity” of the SIR exercise, claiming that nearly 1.82 crore voters were subjected to scrutiny without any data showing large-scale illegal migration in Bihar, where the exercise was carried out last year ahead of the Assembly elections.

“How many illegal migrants were actually found? Not one,” Sibal said, arguing that mass deletions close to elections could undermine democratic participation.

While the bench noted that deletions are inherent to roll correction, Sibal countered that annual revisions already exist and that a wholesale special revision required strong justification supported by data. “This is not an ordinary administrative decision. This judgment will decide the future course of democracy in India,” Sibal said.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO, argued that once a person is included in the electoral roll, valuable constitutional rights accrue, including the right to vote.

He said the SIR in Bihar effectively created a 2003 cut-off, shifting the burden of proof onto voters added after that year, many of whom had already voted in multiple elections. The hearing is expected to conclude on Thursday.