The Election Commission of India (ECI) has provided a critical clarification to the Supreme Court regarding the usage of Aadhaar cards in the ongoing process of updating and revising electoral rolls, particularly in the state of Bihar. The poll panel firmly asserted that Aadhaar is being utilized exclusively for the purpose of establishing and authenticating a person’s identity and should, under no circumstances, be treated as proof of Indian citizenship.

This categorical stand by the ECI comes in the context of a pending plea before the apex court and follows specific directions issued by the Supreme Court itself, drawing a firm legal boundary around the role of the unique identity document in India’s democratic exercise.

The Supreme Court Mandate and ECI’s Compliance

The ECI’s affidavit was filed in response to an interlocutory application submitted by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Upadhyay’s application sought a directive from the court to ensure that the use of the Aadhaar number is strictly confined to establishing identity and authentication, in accordance with the spirit and letter of Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950. The core concern raised was the potential for Aadhaar, if loosely used, to be misinterpreted or misused as definitive proof of citizenship, a function it is legally not designed to serve.

The Election Commission informed the Supreme Court that it had already acted upon a decisive order passed by the court on September 8, 2025. The court’s order had explicitly clarified the ambit of Aadhaar’s usage in the electoral roll updates, stating that the Aadhaar card was to be used for the purpose of establishing identity in view of the enabling statutory provision, Section 23(4) of the RPA, 1950.

In direct compliance with this judicial direction, the poll panel confirmed in its reply: “… by following the aforesaid order, the commission has already issued instructions dated September 9, 2025, to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Bihar for usage of Aadhaar card as proof of identity and not as proof of citizenship… for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion in the revised voter list of the state of Bihar.”

This instruction, issued just a day after the court’s order, establishes a clear operational guideline for all field officers engaged in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, especially in Bihar where the revision exercise has been a subject of intense scrutiny and political debate.

The Legal Framework: Section 23(4) of the RPA, 1950

The legal authority for the ECI to use Aadhaar in the electoral process is rooted in the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 23 of the Act deals comprehensively with the inclusion of names in electoral rolls. The relevant subsection, Section 23(4), was introduced to enable the Election Registration Officer (ERO) to require an individual to furnish their Aadhaar number for the purpose of establishing identity.

This provision, particularly following the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, allows for the voluntary collection of the Aadhaar number from both new applicants and existing voters. The primary objective is twofold: to strengthen the overall accuracy of the electoral rolls and to identify instances of multiple registrations of the same person in the electoral roll of more than one constituency, thereby curbing electoral fraud. The ECI’s current clarification ensures that this authentication mandate is not confused with the entirely separate requirement of proving citizenship, which is a constitutional prerequisite for being a voter.

UIDAI’s Stance and Judicial Precedent

To reinforce its argument before the Supreme Court, the ECI also cited an official clarification issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the statutory body responsible for the issuance of the Aadhaar number.

The poll panel highlighted that the UIDAI, in an Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 2023, had explicitly stated that the Aadhaar number is not proof of citizenship, residence, or date of birth. This OM aligns with Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, which legally restricts the Aadhaar number from being accepted as proof of citizenship or domicile.

The ECI’s reliance on this statutory limitation is further bolstered by judicial precedent. The Commission noted that the Bombay High Court, in a related matter, had referred to the UIDAI’s OM and ruled that Aadhaar could not be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth, reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof for such claims rests squarely upon the Aadhaar holder, and not the document itself.

By referencing both the Supreme Court’s specific order and the UIDAI’s official position, the ECI successfully demonstrated that the legal and operational guardrails for Aadhaar usage in the electoral process are already firmly in place.

Context of the Application and Broader Electoral Revision

The application filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay was an interlocutory plea submitted in a broader, pending public interest litigation. This main plea seeks a direction to the Election Commission to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls at regular intervals across the entire country, beyond the scope of a single state.

The Supreme Court, in taking cognizance of Upadhyay’s application and issuing notice on October 7, reiterated its previous observation that Aadhaar does not establish citizenship or domicile. This reiteration serves as a judicial check, ensuring that the process of linking or using Aadhaar in the electoral rolls does not, inadvertently or by misinterpretation, become a tool for determining or questioning an individual’s citizenship status, a concern that has often been raised in the public discourse surrounding large-scale document collection and electoral enumeration exercises.

The ECI’s prompt and definitive response assures the court and the public that the commission is operating within the defined legal parameters, limiting the unique identity number to its role as a valid, though not mandatory, document for identity authentication, while the core criteria for inclusion in the voter list—including Indian citizenship—remain subject to the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed process of verification under the RPA, 1950. This clarification is vital for maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll while leveraging modern technology to make the revision process more accurate and efficient.