SC order on Aadhaar in SIR significant, but hiccups remain: Experts | Capital Beat

In this episode of Capital Beat, Dr Pyare Lal Garg and Supreme Court lawyer Neha Rathi examined the Supreme Court’s direction to the Election Commission of India (EC) to accept Aadhaar as the 12th prescribed document for identity in the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The discussion focused on legal validity, field-level compliance, and risks of disenfranchisement during the SIR.

SC directive

The Supreme Court asked the EC to issue directions for accepting Aadhaar as a valid identity document for the SIR. The bench clarified that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and that the EC may verify Aadhaar numbers for genuineness.

Also read: Supreme Court directs EC to treat Aadhaar card as a "12th document", Bihar SIR

Rathi called the order “a significant” step and “a slight extension of the previous orders,” noting that earlier acceptance of Aadhaar had been “limited to aggrieved people whose names were already deleted.”

She said, “The direction that Aadhaar should be accepted as the 12th document means that where 11 documents were listed in the enumeration form, Aadhaar will now ensure a person’s form is fully accepted.”

Rathi added that while the enumeration window has closed, acceptance during the claims and objections phase now follows from the court’s direction. She stated, “For the 7.24 crore voters in the draft list—many served notices—if they submit Aadhaar, it must be accepted without insistence on the other 11 documents.”

Compliance issues raised in court

The panel addressed evidence presented to the court regarding the non-acceptance of Aadhaar at the field level. Rathi said show-cause notices were issued to Booth Level Officers (BLOs) for accepting documents “outside of the 11 documents” listed on the form.

"We showed notices to the court…insistence on 11 documents was categorical,” she said, adding that the court questioned why those 11 were still being cited after prior directions.

Rathi described the pattern as “absolute contempt” amounting to “willful disobedience” and “non-compliance of multiple orders.” She said that if the EC fails to comply with the latest direction, “we will be filing a contempt” petition.

Also read: Voter Adhikar Yatra, a people’s push against political manipulation

On the EC’s stance that it “can’t be over-inclusive,” Rathi said the court rejected that argument, noting that Form 6 for new inclusion allows Aadhaar for date of birth and residence, while citizenship rests on a declaration subject to penalty for falsehood.

Interim relief versus core legality

The discussion distinguished interim relief from the pending constitutional challenge. Rathi said, “This is in the form of an interim direction—a sort of damage control. Our challenge remains that the entire process is ultra vires the Act, the Rules, and the EC’s manual.”

She added that petitioners pressed for an early final hearing: “Please fix a date for final hearing… the court’s main job is to decide the legality.”

Rathi contrasted the court’s prioritisation of immediate safeguards with unresolved questions: “We were forced into interim prayers because the risk of disenfranchisement is too large.” She noted prior hearings in which larger issues remained pending while time-bound processes advanced.

Rathi also pointed to “absolute… confusion on the ground,” citing notices that “do not even mention under which provision of law they are being issued” and “do not specify the discrepancy,” yet require appearance within seven days with originals.

Also read: Public empathy for Modi's mother unlikely to translate into votes in Bihar

Legal critique

Dr Garg argued that the matter must be resolved strictly “as per law.” He stated, “When the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 30(4) says that if any document can be sought, it is only the Aadhaar number, and Section 23(5) says even if Aadhaar is not provided, neither registration can be denied nor a registered elector removed, the EC must act accordingly.”

Dr Garg said, “Section 21 says the revision shall be carried out as per the procedure laid down and the draft electoral rolls shall be published in accordance with the Rules.”

He added that Section 19 requires declarations on age and ordinary residence, not multiple documents: “Where is it that I have to provide 11 documents or 12 documents?”

He criticised the enumeration and forms practice: “The enumeration form designed by the EC violates Rule 8 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. There is a precise Form 4A to be given to the head of family, and no document is to be provided.”

Judiciary’s role and standards

Dr Garg pressed for decisions anchored in statute rather than pragmatics: “The Supreme Court is to decide whether a law is there or not… not to function like a panchayat.”

He maintained that petitioners should “hammer the legal points,” saying, “Let the Supreme Court decide; the fight should be on legal points.”

Dr Garg also referred to earlier EC assurances: “On 1 May 2025, [the Commission] said it would check birth registers, school enrolment, and take data online to expedite the procedure.” He said the Commission is “stopped from acting arbitrarily” where it has already set out its method.

Also read: Dynasty dilemma plagues Nitish as partymen want son Nishant to take the lead

He argued that if revision is not conducted properly, “Section 21 authorises that earlier rolls are to be used,” suggesting that for Bihar, “there should be an effort to take an order… that the earlier rolls be used so there is no time pressure on SIR.”

Next steps, operational challenges

Rathi outlined the immediate practical issues arising from the order: “The court orally said the EC should publicise acceptance of Aadhaar. Enumeration is over, so those whose names are deleted must go through claims. That deadline needs extension, because exclusions may have occurred for want of Aadhaar acceptance.”

She identified procedural bottlenecks: “Notice hearings require attendance within seven days with original documents, though acknowledgements were not given, and discrepancies are not specified. People may not be in Bihar at the time.” On appellate timelines, she noted, “First appeal to the District Magistrate and second appeal to the CEO—there is hardly any time.”

Rathi added that the direction “was not only for Bihar,” and any communication from the EC to state CEOs should align nationally: “You accepted it for Bihar; you need to accept Aadhaar as the 12th document for this as well.”

What the panel underscored

The panel recorded that the court sought an explanation from the EC on show-cause notices to officials who accepted Aadhaar and directed the Commission to issue instructions for Aadhaar acceptance during the SIR while reiterating that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.

Also read: SIR row flags crumbling of cadre infra that once anchored electoral democracy

Rathi said the petitioners would continue to seek adjudication on the legality of the SIR and related procedures, alongside interim protections “so that names are not deleted.” Dr Garg stressed adherence to statutory provisions, prescribed forms and rules, and the option under Section 21 to rely on earlier rolls if revision is not legally conducted.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.