‘Aadhaar card cannot be accepted as citizenship proof’, Supreme Court remarks in SIR dispute

The Supreme Court heard the controversy over getting SIR done before the assembly elections in Bihar on Tuesday. During this hearing, the Supreme Court has made an important comment. Supreme Court Justice Suryakant has said that the Election Commission is right in saying that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as the final proof, it needs to be investigated.

What arguments were given in the court?

During the hearing in the case, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that every person born after 1950 is a citizen of India but there is a huge mess in the process here. Giving an example, he said that in a small assembly constituency, 12 people were shown as dead, while they are alive. BLO did not do any work. Senior advocate Gopal S. told the court that 65 lakh names have been removed, this is mass exclusion. At the same time, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi on behalf of the Election Commission said that this is just a draft roll. There can be minor mistakes in such a big exercise, but it is not right to say that the dead are alive.

Read what happened in the hearing?

Justice Joymala Bagchi said that if the preparation steps that take place before the draft roll are not followed properly, then it is a serious matter. The court said that those who have been wrongly shown as dead will be corrected.

Sibal said that Justice Bagchi told that this is the requirement in the stage of Form 4. 4 is draft, if I am excluded and I want to be included, then I fill Form 6. Justice Bagchi said that on the basis of these reports, the BLO prepares a draft roll as per Rule 10. Sibal said please see Form 4, what do they want from me. Name and details- Citizen’s name, father/mother/husband details, age, signature.

The rules of the SIR process are being discussed… Sibal said what have they asked in the emonoration form? Nothing like that. See the form, which they say they have asked people to fill. It has nothing to do with Form 4. The whole process is against the law, they have no right to do this.

Justice Suryakant said where is it written in the form that all the documents should be there?

• Sibal said that the basic thing is missing.
• Justice Kant said that whether this is true or apprehension, let’s see. The purpose is to provide convenience, it comes on the Aadhar card. It says ‘from the list given below’, it is not necessary that you have to give all the documents.
• Sibal said that the people of Bihar do not have these documents, that’s the point.
• Justice Suryakant said that Bihar is a part of India. If Bihar does not have it, then other states will also not have it. What are these documents? If you are a central government employee, then any identity card/document issued by local/LIC.
• Sibal said that they are saying that it cannot be confirmed. Talking about birth certificate, only 0.56% have it. Passport 2.7% and 14.71 have matriculation certificate.
• J. Kant: There must be something to prove that you are a citizen of India… Everyone has a certificate […], it is needed to buy a SIM. OBC/SC/ST certificate…
• Sibal said that they are excluding people of 2003 from any document being given. These are the 2025 rolls.
• Justice Kant said that we are asking that if you are challenging the process itself, then you are questioning the cut-off date. So let’s come to this, does the Election Commission have such power? If it is assumed that the Election Commission does not have such power, then the matter is over.
• Sibal said that this is correct. But they also say that if I was in the 2003 roll, and I have not filed the enumeration form, then I will be excluded. I object to this also.
• Justice Bagchi said that Rule 12 says that if you are not in the 2003 roll, then you have to provide documents.
• The Supreme Court told Sibal that we want to know whether your allegations are mere imagination or there is some ground reality to them.
• Sibal said that this is our argument. Crores of people’s names are likely to be excluded. There are elections in October, why should they do this? They say in their reply that they did not do any investigation. Total 9 crore voters, they say 7.24 crore have filled the form, 22 lakh have died (this is without investigation), 7 lakh have already enrolled.
• Justice Kant said that this means 24 crore are alive. 22 lakh have died. Where are those crores that you are talking about.
• Sibal said that 96 crore are part of the 2003 voter list. We have about 4 points left.
• Justice Bagchi said that obviously dead people will be removed from the SIR. What is the objection in this.
• Justice Suryakant: Election Commission is right in saying that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as final proof, it needs to be investigated.
• Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that they have not mentioned anywhere that this is the list of 65 lakh people and out of 65 lakh people, these are those who have died and these are those who have moved. They have filed a reply saying that they do not need to give information.
• Election Commission’s lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said that what we have given to BLA is a completely false statement. The court is being misled.
• Bhushan said that the Election Commission has full information. They are saying that we are not bound to give you information. It is not that they do not have information. What is even more shocking is that the BLO of the Election Commission has written ‘recommended/not recommended’ and we have received a list of these in respect of two districts through a whistleblower. What we have found out is shocking, 10-12% of the voters who have filled the form are not recommended! What is the basis of this? The Election Commission has never done this before in the history of the country.
• The Supreme Court told the petitioners against Bihar: If 7.24 out of 9 crore voters responded, then it refutes the claim of 1 crore voters missing.
• Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the Election Commission has reversed the entire system of amendment in the voter list. Under the guise of amendment, they are trying to reverse the burden of proving citizenship: Singhvi
• Bhushan said that the Election Commission has full information. They are saying we are not bound to give you information. It is not that they do not have the information. What is even more shocking is that the Election Commission’s BLOs have written ‘recommended/not recommended’ and we have received the list of these in respect of two districts through a whistleblower. What we have found out is shocking, 10-12% of the voters who have filled the forms are not recommended! What is the basis of this? The Election Commission has never done this before in the history of the country.