Aadhaar, Citizenship, and the Voter List Controversy
A heated legal and political controversy has erupted over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, a state heading toward Assembly elections in 2025. The key contention: whether the revision process oversteps its constitutional mandate by linking voter eligibility to proof of citizenship—while notably excluding the Aadhaar card from the list of accepted documents. The Supreme Court is now scrutinizing the legality and timing of the revision, raising important questions about voter rights, administrative authority, and democratic integrity.
The Core of the Debate: Who Needs to Prove What
At the center of the controversy is the ECI’s 24 June directive mandating that voters whose names were not on the electoral roll as of 2003 must now submit documents proving their date and/or place of birth—thereby establishing their Indian citizenship. Depending on their birthdate, individuals are required to submit additional documents from their parents as well:
· Born before July 1, 1987: Must submit proof for themselves.
· Born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004: Proof for self and one parent.
· Born after December 2, 2004: Proof for self and both parents.
However, individuals or families listed on the 2003 electoral roll are exempt from these new requirements. The EC argues that the last intensive revision in 2003 was detailed enough to rely on as a benchmark.
This special revision affects nearly 3 crore voters in Bihar, as per independent analyses, who will need to submit documentation to stay on the electoral roll. The EC claims that 4.96 crore voters, or 63% of the electorate, qualify for the shortcut by referencing the 2003 roll. Critics, including legal analyst argue the number is misleading, as it does not account for deaths, migration, and address changes over the last 21 years—potentially inflating the actual figure of exempt individuals.
Aadhaar Excluded: Supreme Court Questions the Rationale
During the 10 July hearing, the Supreme Court raised multiple concerns. A key question revolved around the exclusion of Aadhaar as an acceptable form of identification. Though it is a commonly used document under Indian law for identity verification, the EC asserted, “Aadhaar card is not a proof of citizenship.” This response came in light of the constitutional requirement under Article 326, which limits the right to vote to Indian citizens.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the SIR process was valid under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. While senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan confirmed it was, he argued that the EC must also adhere to Section 21(1) and associated procedural rules. The Court noted that if Aadhaar is a recognized document under the law, its exclusion warrants further judicial examination. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia added that the Court would further examine why Aadhaar was not listed among the 11 accepted documents for proof, even though it is widely used and easily accessible.
Timing and Authority: Too Late or Overreach?
Another major concern for the Supreme Court was the timing of the revision. With Bihar elections just months away, the EC’s sudden requirement for citizenship verification may disrupt the electoral process. “Isn’t it too late now for that?” asked the bench.
The Court questioned the EC’s jurisdiction in delving into the issue of citizenship verification, traditionally the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The EC responded that citizenship verification is integral under Article 326, as only citizens are allowed to vote. However, the Court emphasized that while voter list purging is essential, such intensive exercises must follow due legal process and avoid usurping roles meant for other government bodies.
Reasons Offered by the EC
In its defense, the EC cited multiple reasons for the special revision:
· Migration and demographic shifts
· Inclusion of newly eligible voters
· Removal of deceased or non-citizen names
· Growing concerns about illegal immigration
It further justified the requirement for photographic verification, updated signatures, and documentation to clean and modernize the electoral roll, enhancing credibility ahead of the 2025 elections.
A High-Stakes Balancing Act
The Bihar electoral roll revision has ignited a complex legal and ethical debate. On one hand, ensuring that only eligible citizens vote is fundamental to democratic integrity. On the other, excessive documentation requirements—especially excluding widely used identity cards like Aadhaar—may disenfranchise legitimate voters and disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome could set a precedent not only for Bihar but for future electoral exercises across India. The case underscores the delicate balance between electoral transparency, legal procedure, and protecting the constitutional right to vote.
(With agency inputs)
