SC Asks If Aadhaar Card Is Enough For A Foreigner To Be Listed As Voter
Supreme Court questions if Aadhaar alone can justify a foreigner being listed as a voter during Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision process.
SC Questions Whether Aadhaar Card Alone Can Allow a Foreigner to Become a Voter During Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday raised critical questions regarding the reliance on Aadhaar during the Election Commission’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The court asked whether a foreigner who had managed to obtain an Aadhaar card and welfare benefits could also be allowed to cast a vote simply on the basis of possessing the card. This query has sparked a deeper examination of whether Aadhaar can operate as an automatic route to voting rights in India, especially when citizenship remains the constitutional prerequisite for electoral eligibility.
read more: Bruce Lee’s Birthday 2025: Celebrating the Legacy of the Martial Arts Icon and Philosopher
Debate Sparked During Hearing on the Legality of SIR Process
The discussion emerged while the court was hearing petitions challenging the legality and fairness of the SIR drive being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petitions questioned whether the process was exclusionary and potentially harmful to vulnerable sections of the population. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that relying on Aadhaar could risk including non-citizens in electoral rolls. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned whether the mere possession of Aadhaar card could be considered sufficient proof to be registered as a voter, or if stronger checks were necessary to prevent misuse.
CJI Surya Kant’s Sharp Query on Aadhaar and Citizenship
Chief Justice Kant made a pointed observation, stating that while Aadhaar is beneficial for accessing welfare schemes, it may not automatically qualify someone for voting rights. He emphasized the fundamental purpose of Aadhaar as an identity authentication tool rather than evidence of citizenship. He asked, “Aadhaar is a creation of statute. Nobody can dispute its usefulness to avail welfare benefits… but does it mean that since he has got Aadhaar, he should be made a voter also?” His remarks highlighted the distinctions between identity, residency, and citizenship—core concerns in maintaining electoral integrity.
Concerns About Scope and Uniformity of the Special Intensive Revision
Kapil Sibal argued that the SIR process could have valid concerns in border states where cross-migration is an issue but questioned whether the same intensity of scrutiny was justified in states like Kerala or Bihar. The second phase of the SIR currently covers 51 crore individuals across 12 States and Union Territories. Sibal pointed out that millions of rural women and labourers might face difficulties filling out the enumeration forms, potentially leading to wrongful exclusions. He warned that the burden of proving citizenship was being unfairly shifted onto existing voters, with booth-level officers (BLOs) being given excessive discretionary powers.
ECI’s Duty to Verify Questionable Entries
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Election Commission has the authority to verify entries and that its role cannot be reduced to merely processing paperwork without scrutiny. He said that enumeration forms were an essential part of the verification process and insisted that the ECI could not function like an “inert post office.” Justice Bagchi referred to Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 326 of the Constitution, which clearly state that only citizens are entitled to vote. According to him, constitutional bodies always retain residual powers to conduct preliminary inquiries when needed to maintain electoral purity.
Arguments on Exclusion vs. Accuracy
Kapil Sibal repeatedly stressed that his challenge was not to the ECI’s jurisdiction but to what he termed an unreasonable and rushed exercise. He argued that completing the SIR within just two months lacked justification and risked mass exclusion. The petitioners claimed that the process was turning into a form of citizenship screening, with voters forced to prove their nationality to avoid removal from the rolls. Sibal cited examples of electors wrongly declared dead by BLOs, reflecting alleged administrative lapses.
Read more: Palash Muchhal Ex-Girlfriend Birva Shah Pics Go Viral As Smriti Mandhana Postpones Wedding
Supreme Court Responds to Fears of Mass Disqualification
Chief Justice Kant countered arguments about time pressure, stating that fears of mass removal did not materialize during the Bihar phase of the SIR. He noted that only slightly more than three lakh names were removed and very few objections were filed. The Chief Justice added that rural voters are often more aware and protective of their electoral rights, calling voting day a celebration in rural India. However, Sibal disagreed, stating that the problem lay in the process rather than public awareness. He insisted that rights cannot be taken away without a fair and reasonable procedure.
We’re now on WhatsApp. Click to join.
Like this post?
Register at One World News to never miss out on videos, celeb interviews, and best reads.
