Supreme Court backs Election Commission's stand that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship ::::: "If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can't be a problem"

Poll panel correct, Aadhaar can't be accepted as citizenship proof : 

--- Supreme Court

It's a setback to anti-EC brigade 

"There were 7.9 crore voters in the 2025 list, of whom 4.9 crore were in the 2003 list, and that 22 lakh were recorded as dead" - Kapil Sinal for petitioners 

The Supreme Court backed the Election Commission's stand that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, as petitioners challenged Bihar's voter roll revision, citing mass exclusions.  

The Supreme Court observed that if a voter submitted a form with Aadhaar and ration card, the EC was obliged to verify the details. 

It also sought clarity on whether those entitled to receive notification about missing documents had indeed been informed.

A bench led by Justice Surya Kant made the observation during a hearing on petitions challenging the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. 

"The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified," Justice Kant told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners.  

The top court also said the first question to decide was whether the ECI had the power to carry out the verification exercise. 

"If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can't be a problem," Justice Kant remarked.

Sibal argued that the poll panel's process would lead to large-scale exclusion of voters, especially those unable to submit required forms. He claimed that even voters included in the 2003 electoral rolls were required to fill fresh forms, and failure to do so would lead to deletion of names, despite no change in residence.

According to Sibal, the Election Commission data showed 7.24 crore people had submitted forms, yet around 65 lakh names were excluded without any proper inquiry into deaths or migration. 

"They admit in their affidavit that they did not conduct any survey," he told the bench.  

The court questioned how the 65 lakh figure was arrived at and whether the apprehension was based on verified facts or assumptions. "We want to understand whether your apprehension is imaginary or a real concern," the bench said, noting that those who had submitted forms were already in the draft rolls.

Sibal then claimed there were 7.9 crore voters in the 2025 list, of whom 4.9 crore were in the 2003 list, and that 22 lakh were recorded as dead.

Meanwhile, advocate Prashant Bhushan, also representing the petitioners, alleged that the EC had not disclosed — either in court filings or on its website — the list of voters excluded due to death or change of residence. "They say they have given some information to booth-level agents, but claim they are not obliged to give it to anyone else," Bhushan submitted.