‘Should an intruder with Aadhaar vote?’: SC sparks sharp debate on identity, citizenship and electoral integrity

The Supreme Court on November 26 raised a pointed constitutional question at the heart of India’s voter roll overhaul: Does possession of an Aadhaar card entitle a person to vote — even if they may not be a citizen?

Presiding over petitions challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across states, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant underscored the distinction between Aadhaar as a welfare identifier and citizenship as a prerequisite for voting.

“Aadhaar is a statutory document serving a specific purpose,” the CJI observed while hearing concerns of wrongful deletions. “If an individual enters India from a neighbouring country and receives Aadhaar to access subsidised food or social benefits — that reflects our constitutional morality. But does that automatically make him a voter?”

The remarks came in response to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal and Kerala, who argued that thousands of citizens had been dropped from electoral rolls despite holding Aadhaar.

‘Process cannot punish the voter’

Sibal framed the issue as one of due process and constitutional protection.

“There is a presumption of citizenship. A person declares: I live here, I have Aadhaar, I am on the voter roll. If the state seeks to take that away, the burden is on the state — not the citizen,” he told the bench.

The court, however, noted that data from states such as Bihar reflected minimal objections during the revision exercise, suggesting broad public awareness.

“Media reports were everywhere,” the CJI said. “In the remotest villages, people knew voter rolls were being revised. Can someone now say they had no knowledge?”

‘Dead voters vote depending on who is in power’

Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted another concern: the prevalence of ghost or duplicate voters — a phenomenon that, he said, can distort electoral outcomes depending on who benefits.

“It depends on the political gradient,” he remarked. “If one party is dominant, all the dead voters end up voting for them. That is precisely why they must be weeded out.”

He questioned reliance on software alone, noting that algorithms can detect duplicates but cannot independently flag deceased electors.

Electoral body under scrutiny — and pressure

The bench sought responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and state commissions as petitioners argued that the revision exercise was rushed, opaque, and in some states — unconstitutional.

While some petitioners sought postponement, others demanded a complete halt.

However, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, asserted that the process was nearing completion, with 99% of forms distributed and more than half digitised. There was “no administrative difficulty,” he said.

Deadlines may shift — if necessary

With draft rolls set for publication on December 9, the bench left open the possibility of extending timelines if petitioners demonstrate prejudice or procedural lapses.

“So what if the schedule is in place?” the CJI said. “If a case is made out, the court can always intervene.”