New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is correct in asserting that an Aadhaar card does not constitute conclusive proof of citizenship.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi further stated that the inclusion or exclusion of citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls lies within the mandate of the poll body.
The observations were made by the Justice Kant-led Bench while hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar.
“The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified,” it remarked.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the SIR process could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of vulnerable citizens, especially those unable to submit the required forms.
Sibal argued that most of the enlisted documents are not available to people in Bihar. “Bihar people don’t have these documents, that’s the point,” he submitted.
To this, the Justice Kant-led Bench said, “It is a very sweeping argument that in Bihar, nobody possesses these documents. Aadhaar and a ration card they have? There must be something to prove you are a citizen of India. Everybody possesses some certificate – you need it even to buy a SIM.”
It further remarked that the Aadhaar Act itself makes it clear that an Aadhaar number is not proof of citizenship, and that the ECI’s stand is consistent with this legal position.
Apart from Kapil Sibal, a battery of lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, presented their oral arguments.
The apex court will resume hearing the matter on Wednesday.
In a recently filed affidavit, the ECI opposed the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)’s demand to disclose constituency and booth-wise details of about 65 lakh electors whose enumeration forms were not submitted.
The poll body said that the statutory scheme under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, does not mandate creating or publishing such a list.
The ADR’s application had sought two directions: first, to publish a constituency and booth-wise list of omitted electors with reasons such as death, permanent migration, duplication, or being untraceable; and second, to disclose the names of electors whose enumeration forms have been “not recommended” by the Booth Level Officers (BLOs). (IANS)
