On Monday, September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that Aadhaar, the unique identity proof, is an essential element of the law governing the right to vote. The court affirmed that citizens are permitted to use Aadhaar for voter verification, strictly within the boundaries set by existing legislation.
This statement came from a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, addressing arguments that attempted to undervalue Aadhaar compared to eleven other identity documents approved by the Election Commission of India (ECI). These documents are used for voter verification during Bihar’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
These recent challenges arose just a week after the Supreme Court had designated Aadhaar as the “12th document” that voters could use to support their claims or objections regarding their inclusion or exclusion from Bihar’s electoral list.
It’s important to note that Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, already authorizes ECI officials to utilize Aadhaar for authenticating entries within the electoral rolls.
Petitioner-advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has requested a reconsideration of the Court’s August 8 order recognizing Aadhaar as the 12th document, argued that Aadhaar can be obtained by any individual, regardless of their citizenship status.
Mr. Upadhyay passionately contended, “Aadhaar does not serve as proof of age, citizenship, residence, or domicile.”
In response, Justice Bagchi questioned the advocate on what purpose Aadhaar was intended to serve. Mr. Upadhyay clarified that it was merely a “simple” form of identity verification.
Referencing Section 23(4) of the Act, Justice Bagchi inquired whether Aadhaar was, in fact, an established part of the legal framework that guides the ECI concerning voting rights and inclusion in voter lists.
Mr. Upadhyay countered this by asserting that Aadhaar should not be considered equivalent to the other eleven specified documents for voter verification.
Justice Bagchi then pressed him, asking, “Are you implying that a land record, which is among the other eleven documents, holds more relevance than Aadhaar in this context?”
Mr. Upadhyay contended that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order issued on June 24 required not just proof of identity, but also supplementary evidence of eligibility, such as place of birth or residence, in accordance with the 1950 Act. He argued that accepting Aadhaar by itself, without additional verification of birth or other eligibility details, undermines the original intent of the June 24 directive. The Court has since issued a notice regarding Mr. Upadhyay’s application.
Additionally, Mr. Upadhyay advocated for a nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to identify and remove “foreign infiltrators” from the electoral rolls. He claimed that “Bihar alone has hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingyas” illegally listed as voters.
Justice Surya Kant responded by stating that the Election Commission of India is well-versed in the law and capable of differentiating between legitimate citizens and infiltrators within the voter lists.
Meanwhile, Senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranaraynan pressed the Court to hear their separate petitions challenging the overall legality of the SIR process. They pointed out that the ECI was already actively conducting SIRs in various other regions across the country.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, also representing the petitioners, questioned, “Why should a citizen like myself be subjected to the potential illegality of this SIR exercise?”
Justice Kant replied, “How can we halt this process entirely? If other states submit petitions, they are equally entitled to a hearing.”
The Court has scheduled October 7 for hearing arguments regarding the legality of the Special Intensive Revision. It provided assurance that its final judgment would supersede any developments that occur in the interim.