No Aadhaar, voter ID in Bihar poll roll revision? Why top court voiced concern

The Supreme Court has raised questions about the Election Commission's requirement for multiple documents in Bihar's voter roll revision. The move risks disenfranchising migrants and vulnerable groups, raising fears of a de facto NRC.

In Short

• Supreme Court expresses concerns over documents demanded by EC
• EC's list excludes widely used IDs like Aadhaar and voter cards
• Petitioners argue extra documents harm rural and migrant populations

“How can you expect everyone in this document-starved country to produce all documents? Even I don’t have a birth certificate,” remarked Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia while hearing petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, currently underway in Bihar.

India Today takes a look at the documents required by the Election Commission of India (EC) and why the Supreme Court has raised concerns.

What documents are on the EC's list for verification?

The EC’s “indicative but not exhaustive” list includes documents to establish a person’s date and place of birth, as well as their place of residence. The enumeration form itself has the voter EPIC number printed on it, along with a space to add an Aadhaar number.

This suggests that while the EC acknowledges the utility of Aadhaar and EPIC, it is asking people to submit additional documentation.

Senior advocates representing the petitioners argued that the demand for extra documents could disproportionately impact vulnerable populations—especially those in rural areas, migrant labourers, and individuals who may have lost personal belongings in floods or other natural disasters over the years.

The EC has consistently emphasised the need to keep electoral rolls “untainted.” Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has stated in media comments that “pure electoral rolls are inevitable for strengthening democracy.”

Documents listed by the EC for verification:

• Any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee/pensioner of the Central/State Government or a PSU.
• Any identity card, certificate, or document issued by the Government/local authorities/banks/post office/LIC/PSUs in India prior to 01.07.1987.
• Birth certificate issued by a competent authority.
• Passport.
• Matriculation or educational certificate issued by recognized boards/universities.
• Permanent residence certificate issued by a competent state authority.
• Forest Rights Certificate.
• OBC/SC/ST or any caste certificate issued by a competent authority.
• National Register of Citizens (where applicable).
• Family register prepared by state or local authorities.
• Any land or house allotment certificate issued by the government.

Aadhaar in the EC’s own FAQs

Ironically, the EC’s own FAQs on its website mention Aadhaar as a means to “keep the electoral rolls pure” by enabling cross-verification of identity.

According to the EC’s website, Question 42 of the FAQs for new enrolments and updates states:

Q: Is it mandatory to provide Aadhaar details in the registration forms?

A: No. It is a purely voluntary field. Non-submission of Aadhaar details shall not be a ground for rejection of the application by the Electoral Registration Officer. However, applicants are expected to furnish Aadhaar voluntarily for the sake of purification of the electoral roll.

Why is the documents list being questioned?

Risk of mass disenfranchisement

Excluding widely used IDs like Aadhaar, ration cards, or even voter IDs could disproportionately affect underprivileged voters. According to data cited in a PIB press release from UIDAI, as of October 24, 2024, 138.04 crore Aadhaar numbers had been generated, covering 99% of the adult population. This makes Aadhaar the most commonly available form of identity, especially given its widespread use for accessing subsidies and welfare schemes.

Since a summary revision of Bihar's electoral rolls was conducted just last year, questions have been raised about the need for another revision. Senior lawyers argued in court that individuals who have previously voted and appeared on the rolls should not be removed without a detailed inquiry and a fair hearing.

Impact on migrants and disaster-affected populations

Electoral rolls traditionally include individuals aged 18 and above based on their ordinary residence. However, the current exercise also takes into account place of birth, raising concerns for migrant workers and disaster-affected people. Migrants, students, and seasonal labourers often face difficulties updating their details due to frequent relocations, increasing their risk of being excluded from voter lists.

Concerns over a de facto NRC

The requirement for documents such as birth certificates or legacy data has raised suspicions of a stealth implementation of a National Register of Citizens (NRC). Critics argue this amounts to a de facto citizenship test, potentially leading to systematic exclusion of marginalized and minority communities.

In the 1992 HRA Choudhury verdict, the Gauhati High Court ruled that the Election Commission cannot link electoral roll revision to citizenship verification. The court held that “doubtful voters” could not be barred from voting or removed from rolls unless a Foreigners Tribunal reached a final decision. It also directed that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) may flag suspected individuals, but proper investigation and hearing must follow before any action.

Similarly, in the 1995 Lal Babu Hussain judgment, the Supreme Court observed: “If any person whose citizenship is suspected is shown to have been included in the immediately preceding electoral roll, the Electoral Registration Officer or any other officer inquiring into the matter shall bear in mind that the entire process for inclusion must have been followed and adequate probative value be given to that fact before issuing notice or taking further steps.”

The verdict made it clear that deletions from the voter list cannot be arbitrary. A clear and reasoned procedure, as per the Handbook for Electoral Registration Officers (HMA), must be followed, and individuals must be given reasonable time to appeal.

There are growing fears that the Special Intensive Revision may be applied in a discriminatory manner, thereby undermining electoral integrity and equitable representation.

- Ends