‘EC is correct, Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive citizenship proof’: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India endorsed the Election Commission of India's (ECI) position that Aadhaar cannot be used as definitive proof of citizenship. This affirmation came during hearings on petitions challenging the Bihar voter roll revision, which cited widespread exclusions from electoral lists. Justice Surya Kant, leading the bench, stated, "The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified."

The Supreme Court further elaborated that Aadhaar, when submitted with other documents like a ration card, necessitates verification by the Election Commission. Questions arose regarding whether individuals were informed about missing documents required for their voter registration. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that all eligible voters are adequately informed about the necessary documentation to prevent any unwarranted exclusions.

Justice Kant highlighted the necessity for legal authority in the verification process, saying, "If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can't be a problem." This remark was directed towards determining the ECI's jurisdiction in the verification exercise, a critical point in the ongoing debate. The court's scrutiny underscores the need for a clear legal framework guiding the ECI's actions.

Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that the ECI's procedures might lead to significant voter exclusions, even affecting those listed in the 2003 electoral rolls. He claimed, "They admit in their affidavit that they did not conduct any survey," pointing to alleged gaps in ECI's methodology. Sibal's concerns highlight the potential impact of procedural lapses on voter inclusivity.

The Supreme Court sought clarity on the alleged exclusion of 65 lakh names from the voter list. It questioned the basis of these figures, asking, "We want to understand whether your apprehension is imaginary or a real concern." 

In the ongoing case, Prashant Bhushan, another advocate for the petitioners, criticised the ECI for not disclosing the list of excluded voters. Bhushan stated, "They say they have given some information to booth-level agents, but claim they are not obliged to give it to anyone else."