EC Rejects Aadhaar, Voter ID, Ration Card As Proof For Bihar Electoral Roll Revision

The Election Commission of India (EC) has informed the Supreme Court that it will not accept Aadhaar, Voter ID cards, or ration cards as standalone proof of eligibility in its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, citing concerns over authenticity and constitutional limitations. The EC, however, clarified that an individual’s citizenship status would not be terminated solely on the basis of ineligibility for registration in the electoral rolls.

The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar marks the first full-scale revision in the state since 2003. While annual summary revisions have been conducted since then, the EC maintains that these are limited in scope and insufficient for ensuring accuracy.

The SIR requires all 7.8 crore registered electors to submit fresh enumeration forms by 25 July, with additional documentation for those enrolled after the last intensive revision. The process has attracted criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups, who argue that the documentation requirements may risk excluding eligible voters, particularly those from marginalised communities. Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the process, with concerns that it resembles a National Register of Citizens (NRC) in effect, an allegation the EC denies.

In a counter-affidavit filed on Monday, the poll panel defended its decision and reiterated its constitutional authority to verify the eligibility of voters under Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution. It stated that while it does not determine citizenship in the legal sense, it is empowered to demand proof to establish whether a person meets the citizenship criteria required for inclusion in the rolls.

This follows the Supreme Court’s suggestion on 10 July that the EC consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents for the revision exercise in Bihar, which is due for elections. The Court had stopped short of restraining the EC from continuing with the SIR but asked for a counter-affidavit to be filed by 21 July, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on 28 July.

Rejecting the Court’s proposal, the EC stated that Aadhaar does not constitute proof of citizenship, a position upheld by several High Courts. “Aadhaar has not been included in the list of 11 documents provided in the enumeration form, as it does not help in screening the eligibility under Article 326. However, this is not to say that Aadhaar cannot be used to supplement other documents to prove eligibility,” the affidavit read.

The Commission added that Aadhaar and ration cards are vulnerable to misuse. It cited a 7 March 2024 press release from the Centre which revealed that over five crore bogus ration cards had been cancelled. On Voter ID cards, the EC noted that the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) merely reflects the existing state of the electoral roll and cannot establish prior eligibility.

The EC’s 24 June order mandated all 7.8 crore registered voters in Bihar to submit new enumeration forms by 25 July. Voters added to the rolls after 1 January 2003, the date of the last full revision in Bihar, are required to furnish additional documentation to prove their eligibility.

This has triggered apprehensions among civil society organisations and opposition parties, who fear that many genuine voters may be excluded for failing to produce one of the 11 listed documents. Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court, including by the Association for Democratic Reforms and prominent opposition leaders. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has alleged that the EC’s exercise is an attempt to implement a National Register of Citizens (NRC) by stealth.

Addressing these concerns, the EC clarified: “Under the SIR exercise, the citizenship of an individual will not terminate on account of the fact that he/she is held to be ineligible for registration in the electoral rolls.”

The Commission stated that its powers to scrutinise voters’ qualifications stem from its constitutional responsibilities and not from the Citizenship Act alone. It argued that the Citizenship Act, 1955, particularly Sections 9 and 10, deal with renunciation and termination of citizenship, primarily in the context of foreign nationality, areas where the Central government has exclusive jurisdiction.

“For individuals claiming citizenship by birth under Section 3 of the Act, Sections 9 and 10 are not applicable. Therefore, the ECI is fully competent to require a person claiming citizenship by birth to produce relevant documents for inclusion in the electoral roll,” the affidavit said.

The Commission further explained the rationale behind requiring different documentation based on age. Individuals born before 1 July 1987 need to provide proof of their own birth details; those born between 1 July 1987 and 2 December 2004 must provide documents for themselves and one parent; and those born after 2 December 2004 must produce documents for both parents. The EC cited Section 3 of the Citizenship Act as the basis for this age-based segregation.

While emphasising that the list of 11 documents is indicative and not exhaustive, the EC maintained that the burden of proof must lie with the applicant. “The necessary documents required to establish citizenship are within the special knowledge of the individual claiming to be a citizen of India… it is incumbent on the said individual to provide such proof,” the EC said.

The Commission also defended the timing and need for the exercise, citing a two-decade gap since the last intensive revision in Bihar. It pointed out that although summary revisions have been conducted annually, they do not require fresh preparation of rolls and are therefore limited in scope. The SIR, by contrast, is a comprehensive, ground-up process designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the electoral rolls.

“Many political parties have raised concerns over inaccuracies in the electoral rolls. The SIR is intended to address these issues through a rigorous and foundational verification process,” the affidavit said.

The EC stressed that no name would be deleted without due process and that multiple layers of verification have been built into the exercise to protect legitimate voters from exclusion.

The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter again on 28 July.