Supreme Court Directs ECI To Accept Aadhaar Card As '12th Document' In Bihar SIR As Proof Of Identity

In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, the Supreme Court on Monday (September 8) directed the Election Commission of India to treat Aadhaar card as a "12th document" which can be produced as proof of identity for the purpose of inclusion in the revised voters list of Bihar.

This means that Aadhaar card can be submitted as a stand-alone document for inclusion in the voters list, like any of the other eleven documents originally specified by the ECI as acceptable ones.

The Court also clarified in its order that Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to issue instructions to its officials on the ground regarding the acceptance of Aadhaar.

The Court further clarified that the ECI officials will be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of Aadhaar cards produced by the voters.

The Court observed that, as per the Aadhaar Act, the Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship; however, keeping in view Section 23(4) of the Representation of People's Act, Aadhaar card is one document for the purpose of establishing the identity of any person.

The Court recorded the undertaking of the ECI that Aadhaar card will be accepted as a proof of identity.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after RJD and other petitioners submitted that the ECI officials were not accepting the Aadhaar card as a stand-alone document for inclusion in the electoral roll and were insisting on the production of any of the eleven documents specified by the ECI in its SIR notification.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the RJD, submitted that despite three orders passed by the Supreme Court to consider Aadhaar card as well, the Electoral Registration Officers and the Booth Level Officers were not accepting it. He cited a show-cause notice purportedly issued to a BLO for accepting Aadhaar card. Sibal submitted that the ECI has not issued any instructions to its officials at the ground level to accept Aadhaar card, and hence the Supreme Court's orders were not getting implemented. Sibal also said that affidavits of several voters, whose Aadhaar cards were not accepted, have been filed.

"Aadhaar card is the universally available document with the population. If they cannot accept that, what kind of inclusion excercise are they carrying out. They want to exclude the poor," Sibal exclaimed.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, submitted that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as a proof of citizenship. Sibal at this point interjected to contend that the ECI has no authority to determine citizenship. Dwivedi disagreed with this submission and asserted that at least for the purpose of eletoral rolls, the ECI hhas the power to decide whether the applicant was a citizen. He requested the Court to decide this issue once and for all.

Dwivedi furthe submitted that the ECI has issued public advertisements in the media to give information to the voters about the Supreme Court's direction for the acceptance of Aadhaar.

Justice Bagchi at this juncture pointed out that, except for the Passport and the Birth Certificate, none of the other 11 documents specified by the ECI were not documents of citizenship.

"We would like you to clarify...we have repeatedly passed order that the list illustratively indicates 11 documents...if you see those 11, apart from passport and birth certificates, none are conclusive proof of citizenship. We clarified saying include Aadhaar," Justice Bagchi said.

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has filed a separate petition seeking nationwide SIR in all states, submitted that Aadhaar card cannot be accepted if the person does not have any of the eleven documents. At this juncture, Justice Bagchi said that the RP Act itself mentions the Aadhaar card. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan specified that it was Section 23(4) of the RP Act which referred to the Aadhaar card as a document of identity. Advocate Vrinda Grover pointed out that even Form 6 (for inclusion of first-time voters) specifies the Aadhaar card as one of the acceptable documents. 

When Upadhyay said that many Aadhaar cards have been forged, Justice Kant said that any document can be forged.

After the bench made its mind clear that Aadhaar has to be accepted at least as a proof of identity, Dwivedi undertook that it will be done. The petitioners then requested the bench to clarify that Aadhaar can be accepted as a "12th document". "Otherwise, the order will not trickle down and it will remain as the other three previous orders passed by this Court," Sankaranarayanan submitted.

The judges, after a brief discussion amongst themselves, then chose to clarify in its order that Aadhaar must be treated as a "12th document".

The order dictated by the bench reads as follows :

"The short issue pertains to the acceptability and status of Aadhaar card. In view of the statutory status assigned to Aadhaar under Aadhaar Act, Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship. However, keeping in view S.23(4) of RP Act, Aadhaar card is one document for the purpose of establishing the identity of any person. Learned Senior counsel for ECI says Aadhaar card shall be taken into consideration as one of the documents for establishing the identity of a person for inclusion/exclusion in the revised voter list of Bihar.

Aadhaar card shall be treated as the 12th document by authorities. However, it is clarified that authorities shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card itself. It shall not be accepted as proof of citizenship. ECI shall issue instructions in this regards during the course of the day."

It was on July 10 that the Court, for the first time, directed the ECI to consider Aadhaar card, along with ration card and the Electoral Photo Identity Card, for inclusion in the voters list. On August 22, the Court's order allowed persons excluded from the draft list to submit applications for inclusion along with Aadhaar Card or other 11 documents.

Developments so far

On July 10, the Court passed an order directing the ECI to consider Aadhaar card, ration card and the EPIC as documents for inclusion in the voters list.

On July 28, the Court refused to stop the ECI from publishing draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1. But, it orally told the ECI to atleast consider Aadhaar Card and EPIC. Justice Kant impressed upon ECI that instead of "en masse exclusion", there should be, "en masse inclusion".

On July 29, the Court was told that 65 lakh persons are likely to be excluded from the draft electoral rolls. In response, it orally said that if there is mass exclusion, it will step in.

On August 6 (after the draft list was published), ADR filed an application alleging that ECI had not disclosed details of the omitted 65 lakh voters. It further claimed that in case of some voters who were included in the list, the BLOs had 'not recommended' the names and reasons for exclusion were not made available. Thereafter, ECI filed an affidavit stating inter-alia that (i) it is not obligated under the applicable Rules to publish a separate list of persons who have not been included in the draft electoral roll, (ii) the Rules do not mandate it to furnish reasons for non-inclusion of any individual in the draft roll.

On August 12, the petitioners opened arguments, details of which can be read here. It was contended inter-alia that the Bihar SIR is illegal and the onus of proving citizenship cannot be shifted on voters/electors. A key aspect of the hearing was the production of two persons in Court, who were allegedly declared dead by the ECI in Bihar's draft rolls after SIR. The bench however was of the view that the same could be due to an 'inadvertent error', which could be rectified.

On August 13, referring to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the bench asked both sides whether ECI does not have residual power to conduct an exercise like Bihar SIR in a "manner it deemed fit". Insofar as the issue of West Bengal SIR initiation was raised, the bench said that the same will be dealt with later. Pursuant to an allegation that ECI deleted the searchability feature in draft electoral rolls published on its website, the bench asked both sides to inform whether the draft rolls were published in the Electoral Registration Office in compliance with the 1960 Rules.

On August 14, the Court directed ECI to publish the names of the 65 lakh excluded voters on Bihar CEO's website as well as websites of the District Electoral Officers, along with the reasons for their exclusion. The information was to be displayed in EPIC-searchable format.

On August 22, the Court directed ECI to allow approximately 65 lakhs excluded voters to submit applications for inclusion through online mode along with their Aadhaar card. While posting the matters to September 8, it orally assured the parties on said occasion that a request for extension of the deadline could be considered later.

On September 1, pursuant to an urgent mentioning, the Court dealt with applications seeking extension of the deadline to file claims/objections to the draft roll. In this regard, ECI told the Court that claims/objections could be filed even after the deadline and all such claims/objections filed before the last date of nominations will be considered. Considering, the Court did not extend the deadline. On a request for a direction that ECI accept Aadhaar card of 7.24 crore (approx.) voters as well, whose enumeration forms were submitted, it told the petitioners to flag specific instances where ECI has denied accepting Aadhaar of a voter in the 7.24 crore category.

For a detailed background, click here.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Click Here To Read/Download Order