Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 8: SC directs the inclusion of Aadhaar as document under the SIR exercise

Sibal: BLOs refusing Aadhar card, proof of residence and identity

Sibal argued that the ECI was resisting the Court’s directions permitting the usage of the Aadhaar card. He produced material which showed that BLOs insisted voters to produce one out of the 11 documents prescribed by the ECI in its 24 June notification. Further, he referred to show-cause notices issued to BLOs who had accepted Aadhaar. He placed 24 voter affidavits from different districts, contending that the “universal” document was being rejected.

Justice Kant asked if the petitioners were seeking the recognition of the Aaadhaar card as proof of citizenship. Sibal clarified that the Aadhaar should be recognised only as proof of residence or identity. He reminded that the Court had directed authorities to “take Aadhaar into account.”

Dwivedi maintained that Aadhaar can be uploaded and used to verify residence or identity. He stressed that the Commission is entitled to inquire into the citizenship of an applicant. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the list of 11 documents were illustrative and asked Dwivedi as to why the translated version of the notices only referred to the original documents. “Among the eleven, apart from passports and birth certificates, none is conclusive proof of citizenship,” Justice Bagchi observed.

Justice Kant added, “The law is very clear on Aadhaar. It is one of the official documents. You must receive it and examine it.” Justice Bagchi too pointed out that the Aadhaar is a document used as proof of residence as per the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoPA).

Sibal: ECI should end ambiguity over Aadhaar

Sibal urged the Court to give an express direction to treat Aadhaar as the 12th document within the SIR exercise. This way,  the BLOs would not insist on the existing eleven. Justice Bagchi noted that the application forms capture the Aadhaar number and the statutory scheme contemplates its use for residence. The Bench asked whether the ECI had issued any formal communication to the BLOs. Sibal suggested that the ECI “should send a circular” to end any ambiguity. Justice Kant suggested the Commission could instruct officials that when Aadhaar is furnished, they should not insist on additional documents. 

Dwivedi questioned the need to label Aadhaar a “12th document.” He argued that Aadhaar is “only for identity” and “cannot be put at par with a passport.”

Dwivedi: Exercise would be “over-inclusive” if Aadhaar accepted

Sankaranarayanan argued that the Court’s directions were violated three times. Further, Singhvi submitted that officers were being penalised for accepting the Aadhaar. The Court had earlier clarified that voters could utilise their Aadhaar card to support their claims and objections.

Sankaranarayanan stated that nobody from the legal services authority had been deployed on the ground despite the Court’s Order from last week. Responding to Dwivedi, he added that the Aadhaar had to be referred to as the 12th document, as officials had only been following 11 documents for the last two months. “Otherwise this will not fructify,” he warned.

Grover stressed that Aadhaar is often the only document available to poorer voters. Petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay interjected and questioned how a person could possess an Aadhaar card without the eleven required documents. Sibal retorted, “I am only talking about identity. Accept my identity”. 

Justice Kant remarked, “Those who are genuine citizens are entitled to vote. Those relying on forged documents are not.” He clarified that the Commission retains the power to verify authenticity.

Dwivedi warned the process should not become “over-inclusive”, to which Justice Bagchi disagreed and noted that adding Aadhaar in the context of an intensive revision is not over-inclusive.

ECI: More requests for deletion compared to inclusion

Repeating his submissions from last week, Dwivedi argued against extending the deadline. He stated that 99.6 percent of 7.24 crore electors had already submitted eligibility documents. Further, the Aadhaar had been accepted for the 65 lakh individuals who were not included in the first draft electoral roll. He contended that there was no indication of a large-scale exclusion. Referring to the draft roll, he added that the ECI had received 33,351 inclusion claims from the 65 lakh voters that had been excluded. 22,723 of them were after the Court allowed the use of Aadhaar. At the same time, he noted, “In many cases electors are coming forward to say that their name is included somewhere and needs to be deleted.” The ECI, he said, had received over 2 lakh claims seeking exclusion.

Bench: Aadhaar to be treated as 12th document 

The Bench observed that the Aadhaar is one of the documents for establishing one’s identity as per Section 23(4) of the RoPA.

The Court directed that Aadhaar “shall be treated as the 12th document for identity, subject to verification of its authenticity and genuineness”. It reiterated that the Aadhaar “shall not be accepted as proof of citizenship.” The ECI undertook to issue the necessary instructions during the course of the day.

Sankaranarayanan suggested that the Commission give the order publicity. Dwivedi said a public exercise was unnecessary as instructions would be issued. Sankaranarayanan called that stance “mind-boggling.” Justice Kant remarked, “You can put it on your website, Mr. Dwivedi, so that voters and officials are clear.”

The Court will now hear the matter on 15 September.