'Why not Aadhaar?': Citizenship proof a key point as SC hears pleas against Bihar voter revision
Citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the Ministry of Home Affairs, remarks top court as hearing continues
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission why Aadhaar was not being accepted as proof of citizenship in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar, which goes to polls in October-November. At one point a judge on the bench remarked that even he could not show all the documents mandated, especially in the short timeline set.
The questions of citizenship and Aadhaar as proof came up after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that even though Aadhaar is an acceptable document as per the Representation of Peoples Act, the poll panel is not considering it valid for the Bihar SIR.
At this, the SC bench asked the EC why. The EC's lawyer, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, told the court: “Aadhar Card cannot be used as proof of citizenship.”
Also read: 'Half of Bihar could lose voting rights'
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked: "… citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs)."
The matter is being heard by a bench comprising Justice Dhulia and Justice Joymala Bagchi.
{{/usCountry}}The matter is being heard by a bench comprising Justice Dhulia and Justice Joymala Bagchi.
{{/usCountry}}The EC lawyer cited Article 326 of the Constitution to say the poll panel has the powers to check for citizenship for voting rights.
{{/usCountry}}The EC lawyer cited Article 326 of the Constitution to say the poll panel has the powers to check for citizenship for voting rights.
{{/usCountry}}Also read: Supreme Court questions timing of Bihar voter list revision
{{/usCountry}}Also read: Supreme Court questions timing of Bihar voter list revision
{{/usCountry}}The SC bench then questioned the timing of the exercise, which began late June. The bench observed that if the EC decided to take away the voting right, then that person has to appeal against the decision and “go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election”.
‘If you ask me for these documents…’
{{/usCountry}}The SC bench then questioned the timing of the exercise, which began late June. The bench observed that if the EC decided to take away the voting right, then that person has to appeal against the decision and “go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election”.
‘If you ask me for these documents…’
{{/usCountry}}“Suppose I want a caste certificate… I show my Aadhaar card [and] I get a caste certificate based on that. So that is a document (caste certificate) accepted (for SIR) but not Aadhaar,” the bench remarked, as per Bar and Bench.
When the EC's lawyer cited a relevant act to say Aadhaar could not be used as citizenship proof or domicile, the court said multiple laws had to be read together for complete understanding.
On why 11 documents were being asked for, the EC said that Aadhaar is a proof of identity, while citizenship needed to be proved with a set of documents.
Amid this argument, Justice Dhulia reportedly remarked: “If you ask me for these documents, I myself cannot show you all these. Then with all your timelines... I am telling you the issues on the ground.”
The question came back to the quick pace of the exercise.
Just ahead of 2025 Bihar polls
While the court observed “nothing wrong in purging electoral rolls through an intensive exercise in order to see that non-citizens don't remain on the role,” it made a rhetorical remark too, “But if you decide only a couple of months before a proposed election…”
Justice Bagchi also said, “My question is, why to link this process to an incoming election at all?”
At this the EC lawyer insisted that no one would be deleted “without notice or being heard”, Live Law reported.
Taking a break after this, the court summed up a part of the proceedings by asking three questions for the EC: one, about the EC's very authority to conduct a “special intensive revision”; two, about the valid procedure, including what it can ask for; and then the timing of the exercise, just months ahead of the assembly polls.
The hearing saw other key questions being raised, too, such as the importance of voter revision since the last one was carried out in 2003.
Earlier, the petitioners against the “intensive” exercise argued that it is wholly "arbitrary" and "discriminative". They pointed out in their pleas too, that the SIR makes voters who have been on the list for years also to re-verify themselves, and in some cases even their parents.
Opposition politicians, some of whom are among the petitioners, have criticised the timing in particular.
The hearing comes after the SC refused to immediately stay the SIR.
What is the core challenge to Bihar SIR?
Transparency group ADR and Swaraj Party's Yogendra Yadav have cited Article 32 of the Constitution while challenging the EC’s notification. TMC MP Mahua Moitra is also among the petitioners. Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi are among the top lawyers leading the challenge.
The petitions note that the identification process shifts the “burden of proof” onto individual citizens, requiring fresh applications and documentary evidence of citizenship by July 25, 2025.
Their argument is that given Bihar’s high rates of migration and pvoerty, such requirements for documents dating back decades can disenfranchise millions.
Political parties, particularly the Congress, RJD and those in opposition to the ruling BJP in Bihar, have alleged this could remove a large number of eligible people. Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav from Congress and RJD, respectively, held a protest against the exercise with a ‘Bihar Bandh’ call on Wednesday.
