Introduction:
In the landmark case Association for Democratic Reforms and Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 and connected cases, the Supreme Court of India, through a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, delivered a crucial order on September 8, 2025, in the ongoing matter concerning the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The dispute revolved around the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) refusal to accept Aadhaar cards as a stand-alone document for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls. The petitioners, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), had approached the Court, alleging large-scale exclusion of voters and non-compliance by ground-level officers with the Court’s earlier orders regarding acceptance of Aadhaar. The Court, after hearing extensive arguments from both sides, clarified that Aadhaar must be treated as the “12th document” for identity verification purposes in voter list inclusion, though it cannot serve as proof of citizenship. This judgment seeks to prevent disenfranchisement of millions of voters in Bihar and ensure a fair and inclusive electoral process.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented primarily by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, highlighted that despite multiple orders passed by the Supreme Court, Aadhaar cards were not being accepted by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in Bihar as a stand-alone document for voter registration. Instead, officials insisted on one of the eleven documents originally specified in the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision notification. Sibal presented affidavits from several voters whose Aadhaar cards had been rejected, underscoring the fact that even a show-cause notice had been issued to a BLO who had accepted Aadhaar as proof of identity. He criticized the ECI for failing to issue clear instructions to its ground-level staff, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s orders being disregarded in practice.
Sibal forcefully argued that Aadhaar is the most widely available document among the Indian population and, therefore, must be accepted to facilitate inclusion, especially of the poor and marginalized, who are at greater risk of exclusion due to documentation barriers. He warned that refusing Aadhaar would amount to systemic exclusion of vulnerable sections of society. He also pointed out that under Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), Aadhaar is expressly mentioned as a document for identity verification.
Further, Sibal asserted that the ECI has no authority to determine questions of citizenship, since that power rests with competent authorities under the law. He argued that conflating proof of identity with proof of citizenship would create unnecessary hurdles for voters and could lead to disenfranchisement. Supporting Sibal, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan emphasized that Form 6 for voter inclusion itself includes Aadhaar among acceptable identity documents, reinforcing the petitioners’ case. Advocate Vrinda Grover also stressed that Aadhaar must be treated on par with other documents already recognized.
The petitioners also drew attention to the massive exclusion numbers in Bihar. According to their submissions, about 65 lakh voters had been left out of the draft rolls, and in many cases, reasons for non-inclusion were not made available. They contended that the SIR exercise was flawed, illegal, and discriminatory, shifting the burden of proving citizenship and eligibility onto voters instead of placing responsibility on the authorities.
In a separate petition, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay sought nationwide application of SIR, but also argued that Aadhaar should not be accepted as a stand-alone document unless accompanied by one of the original eleven specified documents. However, his position diverged from that of the RJD and ADR petitioners.
Arguments of the Election Commission of India:
The ECI, represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, admitted that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship, but maintained that for inclusion in electoral rolls, citizenship is a necessary prerequisite. Dwivedi stressed that the ECI, for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the voter list, has the power to assess whether an applicant is a citizen of India. He asked the Court to finally decide this issue, as repeated disputes over Aadhaar’s status were creating confusion.
At the same time, Dwivedi clarified that Aadhaar could indeed be accepted as a document of identity, in line with the Aadhaar Act and the RP Act. He submitted that the ECI had already issued public advertisements in the media informing voters that Aadhaar would be accepted, and hence there was no deliberate non-compliance with the Court’s orders.
Responding to concerns about forged Aadhaar cards, Dwivedi argued that such risks exist with all documents, not just Aadhaar. He reiterated that the ECI has mechanisms in place to verify the genuineness and authenticity of documents produced, including Aadhaar. He also pointed out that the statutory scheme places responsibility on the Commission to ensure only eligible citizens are enrolled as voters, which makes verification of documents essential.
While defending the ECI’s conduct, Dwivedi acknowledged the Court’s repeated directions and undertook that Aadhaar would be accepted as a document for identity verification going forward, provided it is not mistaken as proof of citizenship.
The Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, carefully examined the submissions of both sides. Justice Bagchi observed that among the eleven documents specified earlier by the ECI, only the Passport and Birth Certificate can be considered conclusive proof of citizenship. Most of the other documents, such as driving licenses, ration cards, and bank passbooks, are identity documents but not citizenship documents. In this context, the Court had previously clarified that Aadhaar too must be considered an identity document.
The bench expressed concern over the ground-level refusal to accept Aadhaar despite repeated judicial orders. Justice Kant noted that any document, whether Aadhaar, Passport, or Driving License, can potentially be forged, and therefore Aadhaar should not be singled out. The Court underscored that Aadhaar, given its universal availability, should play a crucial role in ensuring mass inclusion in the electoral rolls, as opposed to creating hurdles for the population.
The Court also took note of Section 23(4) of the RP Act, which explicitly recognizes Aadhaar as a document of identity. It emphasized that the statutory scheme itself supports Aadhaar’s acceptability for voter registration purposes. The bench also recalled that even Form 6 for first-time voter inclusion includes Aadhaar as an acceptable document, reinforcing that it cannot be excluded from consideration.
The Court further expressed dismay that despite three previous orders, the ECI had failed to ensure compliance at the grassroots level. The bench observed that unless the order was clarified and Aadhaar was formally recognized as the “12th document,” the implementation would continue to be inconsistent, and voters would continue to face exclusion.
Supreme Court’s Judgment:
After hearing the parties and deliberating, the Supreme Court issued a clear and categorical order. The operative part of the judgment stated that Aadhaar card shall be treated as the “12th document” for the purposes of establishing identity during the ongoing Bihar SIR. It reiterated that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship but only of identity, consistent with its statutory status under the Aadhaar Act.
The Court directed the ECI to issue formal instructions to all officials immediately, ensuring that Aadhaar is accepted as a valid stand-alone identity document for inclusion in electoral rolls. However, it also clarified that officials retain the right to verify the authenticity and genuineness of Aadhaar cards produced, to guard against fraud.
The bench noted the ECI’s undertaking, through its senior counsel, that Aadhaar will henceforth be accepted. To prevent ambiguity, the Court dictated in its order that Aadhaar shall be recognized as the “12th document” alongside the eleven previously specified ones. This was done to ensure that the order trickles down effectively to all levels of administration and is not lost in bureaucratic inaction, as had happened with earlier directions.
The Court’s order further reiterated its earlier stance that the SIR exercise must aim at “en masse inclusion” rather than “en masse exclusion,” thereby reinforcing the fundamental democratic principle of universal suffrage. The judgment, therefore, strikes a balance between preventing fraudulent entries and protecting the right to vote of genuine citizens, especially the marginalized.