News Brief

Supreme Court Directs Election Commission To Recognise Aadhaar As Proof Of Identity For Voter Enrolment In Bihar

Arjun BrijSep 08, 2025, 05:40 PM | Updated 05:40 PM IST
(Priyanka Parashar/Mint via Getty Images)

(Priyanka Parashar/Mint via Getty Images)


In a significant order concerning the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Supreme Court on Monday (8 September) directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to treat Aadhaar as a “12th document” that can be produced as proof of identity for inclusion in the revised voters’ list.

The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made it clear that Aadhaar may serve as a stand-alone identity document but not as evidence of citizenship, LiveLaw reported.

The Court underscored that while Section 23(4) of the Representation of People’s Act recognises Aadhaar as a valid identity document, the Aadhaar Act itself specifies that it is not proof of citizenship.

The direction came after petitioners, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), complained that despite earlier Supreme Court orders, Electoral Registration Officers and Booth Level Officers were refusing to accept Aadhaar, insisting instead on one of the 11 documents listed in the SIR notification.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the RJD, argued that the failure to implement earlier orders risked excluding the poor, “Aadhaar card is the universally available document with the population. If they cannot accept that, what kind of inclusion exercise are they carrying out. They want to exclude the poor.”


Justice Bagchi observed that among the 11 existing documents, “apart from passport and birth certificates, none are conclusive proof of citizenship.”

Responding to concerns about forged Aadhaar cards, Justice Kant remarked that “any document can be forged.” After a brief exchange, the bench clarified that Aadhaar must now be treated as the “12th document” for identity verification, ensuring uniform implementation across Bihar.

Earlier, the Court declined to extend the 1 September deadline for filing claims and objections but noted that applications submitted before the last date of nominations would still be considered.

Join our WhatsApp channel - no spam, only sharp analysis