The Supreme Court of India has once again stepped into the heated debate around Aadhaar and voter identity, triggering fresh discussions ahead of upcoming elections. In a recent hearing, the court firmly defended the acceptance of Aadhaar as an identity document during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The case has raised important constitutional questions about citizenship, migration, deletion of voters, and the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI). For millions of voters and exam aspirants alike, this ruling carries serious legal and democratic significance that cannot be ignored.
Supreme Court’s Stand on Aadhaar as Identity Proof
- The Supreme Court made it clear that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, but it can still be used as a valid identity document under election laws.
- The bench observed that even passport services are outsourced to private agencies, yet their validity is never questioned.
- According to the court, when a private entity performs a public duty under statutory backing, the document cannot be automatically rejected.
- The judges clarified that Aadhaar is only one among 11 documents prescribed by the ECI for SIR.
- Its purpose is to help verify identity and avoid duplication, not to decide nationality or domicile of a person.
What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
- Special Intensive Revision is a detailed exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India to clean and update electoral rolls.
- Unlike annual revisions, SIR focuses on large-scale verification to identify duplicate, migrated, deceased, or wrongly included voters.
- The Supreme Court highlighted that migration within and across states has increased significantly over the years, making such an exercise necessary.
- SIR allows Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to verify documents and ensure that voter lists reflect current realities.
- The court said that additions and deletions are both part of correction and are essential for free and fair elections.
Debate Over Citizenship and Aadhaar
- Senior advocates opposing Aadhaar argued that the Aadhaar Act itself states Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.
- They warned that Aadhaar can be obtained by residents staying in India for over 182 days, raising fears of non-citizens entering voter lists.
- The Supreme Court responded by stating that none of the documents prescribed by ECI directly prove citizenship, including land records.
- What matters is whether the document helps achieve the purpose of electoral integrity.
- The court emphasized that Aadhaar’s role is limited to identity verification and does not override existing citizenship laws.
Role and Powers of Election Commission
- The Supreme Court strongly backed the constitutional powers of the Election Commission under Article 324.
- It clarified that the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) has the authority to decide on inclusion or deletion of names during SIR.
- While concerns about misuse were acknowledged, the bench stressed that such powers cannot be unbridled and must be exercised with transparency and accountability.
- The court rejected the argument that only the Central Government can decide citizenship issues for voter deletion, stating that ERO decisions are subject to legal safeguards and judicial review.
Key Summary at a Glance
| Aspect | Details |
| Why in News? | Supreme Court defended Aadhaar as identity proof in SIR |
| Main Issue | Validity of Aadhaar in electoral roll verification |
| Court’s View | Aadhaar is identity proof, not citizenship proof |
| Authority Involved | Election Commission of India |
| Legal Basis | Article 324, Representation of People Act |
| Concern Areas | Migration, deletion of voters, transparency |
Question
Q. The Supreme Court clarified that Aadhaar can be used in elections primarily as:
A) Proof of citizenship
B) Proof of domicile
C) Proof of identity
D) Proof of nationality