The Supreme Court of India on September 8, 2025, issued a significant directive concerning the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The Court ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to issue a formal notice clarifying that Aadhaar will be accepted as a valid identity proof document for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion of voters from the electoral list.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that Aadhaar must be considered the twelfth ID proof document, in addition to the eleven other documents already prescribed by the ECI. The Court also clarified that Aadhaar serves only as proof of residence and not proof of citizenship, reiterating the limits of its legal applicability in electoral processes.
This development comes in the backdrop of petitions challenging the Bihar SIR exercise, especially after nearly 65 lakh names were proposed to be deleted from the electoral rolls earlier this year.
Background: The Bihar SIR and Exclusion of 65 Lakh Voters
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a large-scale electoral roll revision ordered by the ECI ahead of the Bihar Assembly Elections 2025. On August 1, 2025, a draft electoral roll was published which showed the proposed deletion of over 65 lakh names.
This triggered widespread concern, with affected voters and political leaders alleging arbitrary exclusion. On August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to upload the list of 65 lakh names proposed for deletion to ensure transparency.
Further, on August 22, 2025, the Court directed that individuals excluded from the draft rolls could use Aadhaar as an identity document for re-inclusion. However, ground-level reports revealed that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were not consistently accepting Aadhaar, insisting on one of the eleven other ID proofs already notified by the ECI. This led to accusations of non-compliance with Supreme Court orders.
Supreme Court’s Clarification: Aadhaar as the 12th Document
During the September 8 hearing, the Bench categorically ordered that Aadhaar must be formally recognized as the twelfth valid document for purposes of voter verification. The Court stated:
“Aadhaar card shall be accepted…for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion in the revised list. Aadhaar card shall be treated as the twelfth document. However, it is clarified that the authorities shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card itself, and Aadhaar will not be proof of citizenship.”
This statement settles earlier confusion arising from the absence of Aadhaar in the ECI’s formal notification, which listed only eleven identity documents.
Arguments Presented Before the Court
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Petitioners
- Sibal argued that BLOs were refusing to accept Aadhaar cards as sole proof of residence.
- He alleged gross contempt of court orders, pointing to three previous rulings where the Court directed Aadhaar acceptance.
- According to Sibal, election officers were insisting on Aadhaar being accompanied by another identity proof, defeating its purpose as a universal document.
- He presented 24 affidavits from different districts, where voters reported Aadhaar rejection.
- Sibal stressed that the poor and marginalized were the most affected, as Aadhaar was often their only available ID proof.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the ECI
- Dwivedi maintained that Aadhaar is already recognized, citing advertisements and digital uploading options.
- He emphasized that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and that the ECI has no jurisdiction to determine citizenship status.
- However, the Bench pointed out that show-cause notices issued by the ECI referred only to eleven ID documents, not Aadhaar, raising doubts about actual implementation.
Concerns on Forged Aadhaar Cards
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay expressed concerns about forged Aadhaar cards allegedly used by foreigners, including Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants. He claimed Aadhaar could be procured fraudulently for as little as ₹1,000.
The Court, however, reiterated that Aadhaar is already mentioned in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly in provisions and forms that treat it as valid proof of residence.
Other Senior Advocates
- Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that Aadhaar must be expressly listed as the 12th document in the ECI’s official instructions to avoid confusion at the ground level.
- Vrinda Grover highlighted the discriminatory impact of excluding Aadhaar, stressing that only the poor were being denied their democratic rights.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted discrepancies between its previous orders and the ECI’s field-level implementation. While the Commission maintained that Aadhaar is valid, the absence of a formal directive mentioning it as the 12th document led to BLOs refusing voter applications based solely on Aadhaar.
The Bench observed:
“Apart from passport and birth certificate, none of the eleven listed documents conclusively prove citizenship either. Yet Aadhaar is being singled out. We clarified earlier that Aadhaar should be included—why does your notice omit it?”
The Court’s latest order ensures that ECI must issue formal instructions during the day, explicitly recognizing Aadhaar as a valid ID proof.
Implications of the Order
- Electoral Inclusion: The directive ensures that millions of voters, particularly from marginalized backgrounds, are not disenfranchised merely due to lack of multiple identity documents.
- Clarification of Aadhaar’s Status: By reinforcing Aadhaar as proof of residence, not citizenship, the Court has aligned with previous constitutional jurisprudence on Aadhaar’s limited scope.
- Transparency in SIR Exercise: The order is expected to restore confidence in the fairness of the Bihar electoral roll revision.
- Strengthening ECI Accountability: The Court has effectively reminded the ECI to comply strictly with judicial directions and avoid ambiguity in its communications.
Political and Social Context
The Bihar Assembly elections, scheduled later this year, have heightened the stakes of the SIR exercise. With over 65 lakh voters initially excluded, allegations of systematic voter suppression surfaced. Political parties accused the ECI of bias, while civil society groups warned of mass disenfranchisement.
The Supreme Court’s intervention, therefore, has not only legal but also political significance, ensuring a level playing field ahead of elections.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order on September 8, 2025, marks a critical step in safeguarding voter rights during the Bihar Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. By directing the ECI to formally recognize Aadhaar as the twelfth identity document, the Court has reaffirmed its role as a guardian of democratic participation.
While concerns about Aadhaar misuse remain, the judgment strikes a balance by allowing Aadhaar as proof of residence while leaving citizenship determinations to the Central Government. As Bihar heads into elections, the ruling is expected to protect millions of voters from wrongful exclusion, strengthening the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.
Also Read
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Review Jurisdiction under CPC: Cannot Be an Appeal in Disguise
