EC rejects Aadhaar, Voter ID, Ration card as proof in Bihar roll revision, affirms sole authority on citizenship screening

Rejecting a Supreme Court suggestion to consider Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards for verifying voter eligibility in Bihar, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has asserted its exclusive constitutional authority to assess whether individuals meet the citizenship criteria for inclusion in electoral rolls. However, the poll panel clarified that being deemed ineligible as an elector would not amount to loss of Indian citizenship.

The clarification came in a counter-affidavit submitted on July 21 in response to multiple petitions challenging the EC’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar — a move that has sparked political backlash and fears of mass disenfranchisement.

On July 10, while hearing pleas from civil society groups and Opposition leaders, the Supreme Court had declined to halt the revision exercise but advised the EC to consider commonly held identification documents like Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards as part of the process. The EC, however, stood firm on its protocol, stating that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship — a view already upheld by several High Courts.

“Aadhaar has not been included in the 11 prescribed documents as it does not assist in determining eligibility under Article 326,” the EC said, though adding it could be used to supplement other valid records.

Citing widespread fraud in the issuance of ration cards, the EC pointed to a government admission that over 5 crore fake ration card holders were removed nationwide. It further argued that an EPIC — the elector’s photo identity card — reflects current electoral status, not eligibility antecedents.

Not NRC by stealth: EC

The revision order, dated June 24, mandates all 7.8 crore electors in Bihar to submit updated forms by July 25, especially those added after the last major revision in 2003. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and Opposition leaders, have alleged that the exercise could function as a covert attempt at creating a National Register of Citizens (NRC). West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and others have publicly expressed fears over mass exclusion.

The Supreme Court had earlier clarified that determining citizenship is the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission. Responding to this, the EC said it was not terminating citizenship but ensuring compliance with eligibility under Article 326, which grants voting rights only to citizens.

“Citizenship will not terminate if one is deemed ineligible to vote,” the Commission clarified, reiterating that “exclusion from the rolls is not equivalent to loss of nationality.”

Constitutional powers at stake

Invoking Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution, the EC insisted it retains supervisory powers over electoral rolls and can demand evidence of citizenship. It also stressed that the Citizenship Act, 1955, does not negate this constitutional mandate, adding that parliamentary law cannot override constitutional authority.

“Any denial of this authority would result in illegal immigrants and foreigners being included in the electoral rolls,” it said.

For individuals born before July 1, 1987, the EC seeks documentation of their birth. Those born between July 1, 1987 and December 2, 2004, must furnish documents proving the citizenship of at least one parent. For those born after that, records of both parents are required. The EC said this age-wise segregation is rooted in Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, which outlines citizenship by birth.

Burden of proof lies with elector

In its defense, the Commission maintained that the onus of proving citizenship lies with the voter. The documents required are personal and “within the special knowledge of the individual,” the EC said, arguing it cannot be expected to establish proof on behalf of claimants.

The Commission also drew a clear line between checking eligibility for electoral registration and conducting formal citizenship termination, which it acknowledged falls under the Centre’s domain.

Why the overhaul?

Justifying the timing of the SIR, the EC cited the absence of any intensive revision in Bihar for over two decades. Despite annual summary updates, concerns about duplication, inaccuracy, and ineligible voters have grown. The EC said the SIR would ensure a ground-up correction, unlike summary revisions which only involve incremental changes.

“This foundational exercise is aimed at restoring public confidence in the electoral roll’s integrity,” the Commission said. The Supreme Court is set to hear the matter again on July 28.