ECI Affirms to Supreme Court: Aadhaar is for Identity Verification Only in Electoral Rolls, Not Citizenship

New Delhi – In a significant clarification before the Supreme Court of India, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has unequivocally stated that the Aadhaar number is used exclusively as a tool for identity verification in the process of electoral roll inclusion and is not treated as proof of citizenship, date of birth, or residence. This assertion, submitted via a detailed affidavit, addresses a contentious legal debate surrounding the scope of Aadhaar in one of the most fundamental aspects of democratic participation: voter registration.

The ECI's submission comes in response to an interlocutory application filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in his ongoing writ petition, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. Upadhyay specifically sought a direction to bar the use of Aadhaar as proof of date of birth in Form 6, the application for new voter registration. The Commission's comprehensive reply not only defends the current legal framework but also meticulously delineates the boundaries within which Aadhaar operates in the electoral process, providing critical clarity for legal practitioners and election officials nationwide.

The Core of the Dispute: Section 23(4) RP Act vs. Aadhaar's Limitations

At the heart of the matter lies the interplay between the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) and the Aadhaar Act, 2016. The petitioner's challenge hinges on the argument that using Aadhaar for anything beyond simple identification—specifically as documentary evidence for age—contravenes the Aadhaar Act itself and notifications issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

In its affidavit, sworn by Secretary Santosh Kumar Dubey, the ECI firmly rebutted these claims. The Commission anchored its defense in the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, which introduced Section 23(4) into the RP Act. This amendment, the ECI argued, was a deliberate legislative measure to enable the "linking of electoral roll data with the Aadhaar ecosystem." The primary objective, as stated by the Commission, was to enhance the integrity of the electoral rolls by "curbing multiple enrolments of the same individual in different places."

The ECI emphasized that its use of Aadhaar is strictly confined to the mandate of Section 23(4), which permits its use for establishing the identity of an applicant. The Commission asserted that the petitioner's plea represented "an incorrect reading" of the governing statutes and notifications. During a previous hearing, the Supreme Court bench itself had observed that as long as Section 23(4) of the RP Act statutorily permits Aadhaar as an identity document, its use in Form 6 cannot be barred by a UIDAI notification, highlighting the principle that a statutory provision holds precedence over administrative circulars.

Reinforcing Established Legal Precedent

The ECI's affidavit did not rely solely on its interpretation of the RP Act. It bolstered its position by citing a consistent line of legal and administrative clarifications that circumscribe Aadhaar's evidentiary value. Key among these are:

1. The Aadhaar Act, 2016: The Commission pointed directly to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, which explicitly states that an Aadhaar number "shall not be proof of citizenship or domicile." This statutory limitation forms the bedrock of the ECI's policy.

2. UIDAI Memoranda: The ECI referenced an Office Memorandum from the UIDAI dated August 22, 2023, which clarified that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, residence, or date of birth. This official communication from the issuing authority itself supports the Commission's stance.

3. Judicial Precedents: The affidavit cited two crucial court rulings. First, the Bombay High Court's judgment in State of Maharashtra v. UIDAI (2022) , which held that an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth. Second, the Supreme Court's own preference in Saroj v. IFFCO Tokio (2024) for a School Leaving Certificate over an Aadhaar card for age determination.

By marshalling these diverse sources, the ECI constructed a robust argument that its procedures are not only compliant with the RP Act but also fully aligned with the established legal and judicial understanding of Aadhaar's limited role.

Practical Application and Instructions to Officials

The Commission assured the Court that its legal position is not merely theoretical but is actively enforced on the ground. It highlighted that following a Supreme Court order dated September 8, 2025, in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, it had issued clear instructions to all Chief Electoral Officers.

The directive, dated September 9, 2025, mandated the "usage of Aadhar Card as proof of identity and not as proof of citizenship...for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion in the revised voter list." This demonstrates a proactive approach by the ECI to ensure that field-level officials do not misinterpret the law. The affidavit reiterated this point, stating, "The mere presence or absence of an Aadhaar card cannot be the reason for adding or deleting a person’s name from the voter list."

Responding directly to Upadhyay's plea regarding Form 6, the ECI contended that the form does not make Aadhaar a mandatory or exclusive proof of date of birth. It is merely one of several documents an applicant can submit. Therefore, the Commission argued, the claim that its inclusion in the list of acceptable documents is arbitrary or illegal is "unfounded."

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The ECI's definitive stance before the Supreme Court carries significant implications for election law and administrative law. It clarifies that the 2021 amendment to the RP Act was designed as an anti-duplication and identity verification measure, not as a back door to establishing citizenship or other eligibility criteria for voting through Aadhaar.

For legal professionals, this case underscores the critical importance of distinguishing between a document's utility for identification and its evidentiary value for proving a substantive claim like citizenship or age. The ECI's affidavit serves as a clear statement of policy and legal interpretation that can be cited in matters concerning voter registration challenges.

While the Supreme Court has yet to deliver its final verdict in the main writ petition, the ECI’s detailed response, coupled with the Court’s preliminary observations, suggests that the existing statutory framework is likely to be upheld. The Commission has maintained that its current procedures—governed by the amended RP Act, the Registration of Electors Rules, and the Aadhaar authentication framework—are "constitutionally sound and administratively necessary for ensuring accurate and clean electoral rolls." The outcome of this case will continue to shape the evolving jurisprudence on the intersection of biometric identification, data privacy, and the foundational rights of democratic participation in India.