Should intruders with Aadhaar be allowed to become voters? SC asks amid SIR

The Supreme Court emphasised that an Aadhaar is meant to ensure the delivery of welfare benefits and should not, by itself, grant voting rights

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concerns over intruders obtaining an Aadhaar card and questioned whether a non-citizen holding an Aadhaar could then claim the right to vote, NDTV reported.

 

The top court emphasised that an Aadhaar is meant to ensure the delivery of welfare benefits and should not, by itself, grant voting rights. The court made these remarks while hearing the petitions challenging the validity of the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of voter lists in several states.

 

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that an Aadhaar card does not "confer absolute proof of citizenship". It further said, "That is why we said it will be one of the documents on the list of documents. If anyone is deleted, they will have to be given a notice of deletion."

 

The Aadhaar Act clearly states that it does not confer citizenship or domicile.

 

CJI Kant noted, "Aadhaar is a creation of statute for availing benefits. Just because a person was granted Aadhaar for ration, should he be made a voter also? Suppose someone belongs to a neighbouring country and works as a labourer."

 

The Supreme Court also noted that the Election Commission has the power to check the authenticity of documents filed with a Form 6 application for enrolment in the voter list, emphasising that the poll body is not merely a “post office".  ALSO READ | UIDAI deactivates over 20 million Aadhaar numbers of deceased persons

 

The court further set a schedule for hearing petitions that specifically contest the SIR in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The poll body has been asked to file its responses by December 1, following which the petitioners can file their rejoinders.

 

Earlier, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for some petitioners, noted that the SIR raises fundamental concerns over democratic participation. Sibal said that the SIR exercise puts an unconstitutional burden on ordinary voters, many of whom are illiterate.

 

Urging the court to focus on constitutional protections rather than procedural explanations, Sibal said, "Filling up the forms is not the responsibility of the elector. So many are illiterate and do not know how to read and write. If they cannot fill forms, they will be ousted (from electoral rolls)."

 

He further argued that once a voter’s name appears on the electoral roll, a presumption of validity applies unless the state proves otherwise. “Any exclusion must follow a process that is reasonable and fair,” he said.

 

He added that although Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, it still supports a presumption in favour of the holder. The Aadhaar card creates a presumption in my favour by indicating my residence. If my name is to be taken off the voters’ list, it must be done through a lawful and fair procedure that can be scrutinised by this court, Sibal argued.

 

Justice Bagchi, however, underlined the importance of removing deceased voters from the rolls, noting that lists are publicly displayed in panchayats and posted on official websites. “We do not decide in a vacuum,” he remarked.