Supreme Court defends Aadhaar as identity proof for SIR

“Document issued by a privately run centre cannot be relied upon for the purpose of electoral roll,” he said, adding that “as per UIDAI report, on saturation percentage of Aadhaar, it’s beyond 100 per cent in some states”.

The senior counsel said Aadhaar can be issued to anyone who is in India for 182 days or more in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of application for enrolment and all it requires is a letter from the local corporator.

Questioning the submissions, Justice Bagchi asked if he was trying to say that none of the other 11 documents prescribed by the ECI for SIR, including land records, can be forged but only Aaadhaar can be.

“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,” Justice

Bagchi said, adding, “in issuance of Aadhaar, that private individual discharges a public duty”.

Justice Bagchi further said the SC “never said to include Aadhaar to prove citizenship. It said that if Aadhaar is an acknowledged document of identity as part of the statutory scheme of the Representation of the People’s Act (RPA) and if that is so, the enumeration would ordinarily take into consideration the scheme of the Act and include Aadhaar”.

Hansaria said the scheme of the RPA says it is to avoid duplication, adding that unlike Aadhaar, the 11 documents prescribed by the ECI are issued by government authorities.

Justice Bagchi said, “In our understanding, there is a clear nexus with the purpose which the Commission is seeking to achieve through the SIR. Nobody at any point of time argued, or it was in the contemplation of the court, that Aadhaar is a proof of citizenship. In fact, what was argued is something different, that look at the 11 documents, can land records be proof of citizenship? But that document is there. Why? So, these 11 documents need not always be a clear relation to citizenship. But they may be of various species which would ordinarily relate to what the purpose which the ECI seeks to serve in exercising its plenary powers under Article 324 articulated through the statutory scheme under Section 21(3) of RP Act…Even if a private entity prepares a document, but if it is statutorily acknowledged as a proof of identity under the RP Act, ECI would naturally look into it.”

The court also disputed an argument by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who, appearing for some petitioners questioning the SIR exercise, said that in case there was a doubt on the citizenship of a voter, only the Central government can decide.

Justice Bagchi said that it is the ERO who has to decide it for the purpose of striking the name off the list. He, however, pointed out that the CJI had “indicated earlier that it cannot be unbridled. There must be transparency and accountability of every power, howsoever high”.

Sibal said ECI had not satisfactorily explained why the exercise is necessary.

Justice Bagchi said “one of the reasons for the SIR, as we read it, is migration. Then it requires multiple constituency verification simultaneously. You cannot deny the fact that there has been an outward migration continuously in many states…”

Sibal said correction of voter list is different from deletion of names.

The CJI said, “deletion and additions are essentially parts of correction. Between 2003 and 2025, are we not ready to accept that many have died, many have migrated, many have left the country, many have shifted to other places. They are bound to be deleted. Those who were minor in 2003 and have attained majority in 2025 are bound to be included.”

Sibal said that such updates are already done every year.

Activist Yogendra Yadav, who also addressed the court, said “there is a design defect” with the SIR process.

The hearing will resume Thursday.