The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a crucial directive that strikes a fine balance between safeguarding the sanctity of India’s electoral rolls and respecting the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission of India (ECI). In a significant order, the apex court allowed Aadhaar to be accepted as the twelfth document for identification during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters’ lists in Bihar, in addition to the 11 documents already permitted.
The order came with a caveat: Aadhaar may serve as proof of identity, but not proof of citizenship. “The Aadhaar card, in this regard, shall be treated as the 12th document by the authorities. However, it is clarified that the authorities shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card itself,” a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed.
The judgment is significant because it protects two vital principles simultaneously: first, the EC’s autonomy in conducting its revision of electoral rolls across poll-bound states, and second, the constitutional truth that citizenship cannot be proven by Aadhaar alone. For once, the highest court has put an end to the noise of political speculation and reminded all parties that elections are neither about rhetoric nor about bending institutions to suit partisan interests.
The reiteration that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship has larger implications. It directly addresses the reality of illegal immigration from Bangladesh and Myanmar, where many have reportedly overstayed and managed to acquire Aadhaar cards through dubious means. For years, political outfits—particularly in states like West Bengal—have allegedly abetted this to manufacture “vote banks.” A case in West Bengal, where an Aadhaar-holder’s false identity was established only after a prolonged legal battle, is a chilling reminder of how such fraud undermines democracy.
The verdict is a setback for the Congress-led INDIA alliance, which was hoping the court would strike down the very conduct of the SIR exercise. By upholding the EC’s right to proceed, the bench has ensured that the exercise not only continues in Bihar but across the country as mandated.
The bench invoked Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which clearly permits Aadhaar to be accepted for identity purposes during electoral roll revisions. Yet, the court was unambiguous: Aadhaar can establish identity but not citizenship.
The proceedings saw sharp exchanges between senior counsels. Appearing for the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Kapil Sibal alleged that the EC was in contempt of earlier Supreme Court orders since its officials had hesitated to accept Aadhaar. He cited the case of a Booth Level Officer (BLO) being issued a show-cause notice for accepting Aadhaar as proof.
On the other hand, Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, defended the Commission’s conduct. He pointed out that 99.6% of Bihar’s 7.24 crore voters had already submitted proper documents, and there was no widespread grievance of exclusion. Aadhaar, he argued, was being allowed only in cases where voters were left out of the draft rolls.
Justice Kant made the position unambiguous: the EC must treat Aadhaar as one of the valid documents for identity verification but need not accept it as proof of citizenship. Those who are genuine citizens of this country are entitled to vote. Those who are claiming citizenship based on forged documents are not,” the judge underlined.
Justice Bagchi went further, noting that most documents already accepted by the EC—except birth certificates and passports—are not citizenship proofs either. Aadhaar, therefore, stands in line with them, provided authenticity checks are undertaken.
With this directive, the Supreme Court has effectively called for restraint from all quarters. The Opposition, particularly the Congress, must end its futile attempts to delegitimise the EC by crying “vote chori” without evidence. Rahul Gandhi’s reckless allegations against the EC, without even signing an affidavit to substantiate his claims, do not strengthen democracy—they weaken it. Tarnishing a constitutional body for political gain only hurts India’s global reputation.
On its part, the ruling NDA government must let the EC discharge its duties without political interference, while cracking down—through due process—on those who circulate fake Aadhaar cards or misuse identification loopholes to distort the voters’ list.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that elections are about citizens, not illegal immigrants or forged documents. Aadhaar may serve as a convenient tool of identity, but it cannot and should not ever be mistaken for proof of citizenship. The EC now has both judicial clarity and constitutional authority to proceed with its SIR drive across the nation.
For India’s democracy to remain robust, all political parties must respect this balance instead of turning every technical question into a political slugfest. The message is clear: let the EC do its job, let the courts enforce the law, and let elections be free and fair—without noise, without manipulation, and without slander.
