The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed arguments seeking the exclusion of Aadhaar from the list of documents permitted for voter identity verification during the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, observing that the possibility of forgery applies equally to other government-issued documents, including passports.
Hearing a plea challenging the inclusion of Aadhaar as an “indicative” document for voter verification, the Bench remarked that forgery risks could not form a valid basis to single out Aadhaar for exclusion, particularly when other documents accepted by the Election Commission are also processed through private agencies.
Drawing a parallel with passport issuance, the court noted that passport services, too, are outsourced to private service providers functioning under government oversight. “Do you know that a passport is also outsourced to a private agency under the auspices of the Government of India?” the court observed, adding that private Aadhaar enrolment centres operate within a statutory framework and perform a public duty.
The court emphasised that Aadhaar is a public document and that the mere involvement of private enrolment centres does not undermine its legal standing. “Any document can be forged. Even a passport can be forged. While issuing Aadhaar, the private centre is performing a public function,” the Bench said while responding to submissions that Aadhaar enrolments were vulnerable to misuse.
The passport, the court pointed out, was among the original 11 documents permitted by the Election Commission when it notified the SIR exercise in June last year. Aadhaar was later included as the 12th document pursuant to a court order passed during a previous SIR exercise.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the court should reconsider its earlier order permitting Aadhaar to be used for voter verification, contending that Aadhaar enrolments and updates are largely conducted through privately run common service centres. He submitted that approximately 5.72 lakh such centres operate across the country and that individuals with basic qualifications and biometric equipment could manage them.
The argument further relied on the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, asserting that Aadhaar was never intended to serve as proof of citizenship or identity for electoral purposes. Reference was made to the Act’s definition of “resident”, which includes foreign nationals who have stayed in India for a specified minimum period, to argue that Aadhaar cannot establish citizenship.
It was also pointed out that the Act expressly states that an Aadhaar number shall not be used as proof of citizenship or domicile, reinforcing the contention that its inclusion in voter verification could dilute the integrity of electoral rolls.
The court, however, clarified that Aadhaar was never projected as proof of citizenship. “Aadhaar is an acknowledged document of identity. We have never said Aadhaar can be used as a basis of citizenship. We have always said the Election Commission can verify Aadhaar,” the Bench said.
Referring to statutory provisions, the court recalled that amendments to election law permit electors to furnish Aadhaar numbers to electoral registration officers for the limited purpose of identity verification. The court underscored that verification does not amount to conferring citizenship status.
The petitioner further pressed for periodic Special Intensive Revisions of electoral rolls, claiming that illegal infiltration into India had reached alarming levels. It was argued that only Indian citizens should have the right to vote and that regular revisions were essential to preserve the sanctity of elections.
The court took note of the submission that elections must reflect the will of Indian citizens alone, but did not issue any immediate directions on the demand for recurring SIR exercises.
The hearing forms part of a broader judicial scrutiny of electoral verification mechanisms, balancing concerns over voter roll integrity with constitutional safeguards against disenfranchisement.
The matter is expected to be examined further in subsequent hearings.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
