How The Court’s Directive Accepting Aadhaar Card In Bihar SIR Defies All Legal Logic

In its 8th September directive, the Supreme Court subverted the wisdom of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and chose to defy all legal logic by permitting the use of the Aadhaar card as a standalone document for inclusion in the Bihar electoral rolls. 

The Court made its decision on the basis of a provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, which provides for inclusion of names in electoral rolls. 

What makes this directive stand out is the situationally convenient yet legally dicey interpretation given to the provisions of the RP Act. Provisions that should have been relied upon, given the facts of the matter, have been ignored, whereas incidentally related provisions have been given primacy to arrive at a seemingly predetermined conclusion.

The directive also ends up giving a certain legal status to Aadhaar Card that its original statutory mandate does not envision, thus bypassing the legislative intent behind the Aadhaar Act, 2016 in entirety. 

Where Does The Legal Issue Arise

The RP Act, 1950 deals with several matters connected to the conduct of elections including delimitation of constituencies, creation of voter rolls, qualification of voters for electoral rolls, etc amongst other things. 

In the present case, the Court has relied upon Section 23 of the Act, which provides for inclusion of names in electoral rolls. However, the very first clause of the provision states that this provision is triggered only when a person whose name has not been included in the electoral roll, makes an application to the electoral registration officer seeking inclusion in the same. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that this provision is only applicable on a case-to-case basis if an application is made. 

However, this provision does not envision a scenario where mass revisions are being made to the electoral rolls, as is the case with the Bihar SIR exercise where over 7.89 crore electors are being verified. Instead, the present matter falls under the ambit of Section 22 of the Act which provides for correction of entries in the electoral rolls. 

Unlike Section 23, Section 22 does not require individual applications to be made to the electoral registration officers, instead, it allows the officers to correct erroneous entries in the electoral rolls and remove them as may be necessary after offering reasonable opportunity for the affected person to be heard. 

While Section 23 may be incidentally related to the matter as far as individual applications for inclusion in Bihar electoral rolls may be concerned, the entire process followed by the ECI for Bihar SIR cannot solely be governed by it, given its limitations. 

Aadhaar Card And Statutory Limits On Its Utility 

Aadhaar cards are governed under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 which assigns unique identification numbers to individuals to ensure targeted delivery of government subsidies and other welfare services. The legislature placed clear limits on its usage as anything other than a document that establishes identity alone by incorporating Section 9 in the Act which states that Aadhaar cards are neither a proof of citizenship, nor a proof of domicile. 

The legislative intent to limit Aadhaar Card as a proof of identity alone is clear from Section 23(4) of the RP Act, 1950 too, which was inserted via an amendment in 2021 to align the RP Act with the Aadhaar Act, 2016. It allows for Aadhaar card to be used as a proof of identity by persons seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls but does not provide that it be used as a standalone document of proof to establish proof of residence or address. 

The Directive Distorts Prior Judicial Understanding Of How Elections Work 

The Constitution-makers had viewed elections as a paramount feature of democracy that could not be allowed to be hindered or affected by externalities. This understanding is reflected in Article 329 which bars interference of Courts in certain electoral manners. Upon the enactment of the Constitution, in the first few decades of Indian democracy, the judiciary too mirrored the same idea. 

Several landmark verdicts including those in N.P. Ponnuswami (1952) and Mohinder Singh Gill (1977) cases view elections as a sacrosanct process that is not limited to the mere election of a candidate but rather as a process that commences much before the actual date of polling of votes and extends across various facets including delimitation, creation of electoral rolls, etc. A common thread across these verdicts has been the understanding that every election must be conducted with utmost expedience without delays and hindrances, given that every procedural or judicial delay opens doors for the integrity of the elections to be questioned, thus leading to erosion of public trust. 

However, the present directive of the Court has looked past all general canons of electoral laws and has added artificial hurdles in the process of revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, not only by accepting Aadhaar cards as valid proof but also by requiring the ECI officials to verify the authenticity of Aadhaar cards produced before them. 

Yet another constitutional safeguard built in to insulate the electoral system from external pressures is Article 324 which empowers the ECI to supervise the creation of electoral rolls for both Parliamentary elections as well as State Assembly elections. Far from being merely procedural, this provision intends to posit the ECI as the sole constitutional agency in charge of finalisation of electoral rolls. This legislative intent is clear from BR Ambedkar’s clear assertion in the Constituent Assembly during discussions on Article 324, where he stated “the whole of the election machinery should be in the hands of a Central Election Commission which alone would be entitled to issue directives [...] in the preparation and revision of electoral rolls so that no injustice may be done to any citizen in India.” 

The present directive marks a clear departure from this sacrosanct principle. By dismissing the ECI’s expertise and wisdom in not accepting Aadhaar cards as a standalone proof and replacing it with its own notion of “what ought to be”, the Court has stepped beyond its role as a constitutional guardian to become an intrusive preacher. 

In effect, it has commandeered an electoral process that is the constitutional domain of the ECI, thus diluting its independence, which, in the past, the Courts themselves have championed. 

Court’s “Ends Justify The Means” Approach 

Since the very commencement of proceedings on the matter, it has been plainly evident that the Court has laid greater focus on the elusive idea of “inclusivity” even if it came at the cost of an objectively correct electoral roll.

While it is not uncommon for Courts to have larger than life and idealistic solutions for practical problems, the present directive takes it to dystopian lengths by opening the gates for electoral forgery to creep in for perceived moral victories alone.