Aadhaar, citizenship confusion in voter roll overhaul

Confusion surrounding the use of Aadhaar during electoral roll revisions has escalated in recent months, mainly due to the collision of legal rulings, administrative interpretations and state-level variations in implementation. Although Aadhaar has long served as India’s most widely used identity document, its legal status has been precise on one point: Aadhaar confirms identity but does not confirm citizenship. This distinction sits at the heart of disputes over its use in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Successive court hearings, especially in cases linked to Bihar’s ongoing SIR exercise, have highlighted the public perception gap. To many citizens, Aadhaar’s ubiquity suggests it should serve all state functions, including voter verification. Yet the statutory framework, combined with instructions from the Election Commission of India (ECI), has drawn a clear boundary that repeatedly requires clarification.

Panellists on The Squirrels' live show on 28 November examined the Supreme Court's rulings, the ECI's explanations, state decisions and UIDAI’s role to explain why confusion persists despite clear legal definitions. That video is featured above.

Views of Supreme Court, ECI on Aadhaar status

The legal foundation for Aadhaar’s limited role lies in Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, which states unequivocally that an Aadhaar number is not proof of citizenship, domicile or even date of birth. It is proof of identity alone. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation in multiple proceedings, reinforcing that Aadhaar cannot serve as a conclusive link to citizenship.

The ECI’s position mirrors this framework. In its affidavits before the Supreme Court, the Commission has consistently maintained that Aadhaar is used only for identity verification of applicants. It is not a determinant of eligibility, deletion or inclusion in electoral rolls. This position has become especially relevant during the SIR process because several states were unsure whether Aadhaar could be treated as a primary document for verification.

Despite this clarity, the situation became complicated when differing state interpretations led to inconsistent practices that eventually required judicial intervention.

Aadhaar's acceptance during SIR

During litigation concerning the SIR process in Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar must be accepted as one of the 12 approved identity documents used by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) during house-to-house verification. The Court noted that other commonly accepted documents – such as PAN cards, passports or ration cards – also face forgery risks. Singling out Aadhaar for exclusion, therefore, could not be justified.

This acknowledgement effectively prevented state authorities from rejecting Aadhaar during the SIR exercise. It also restored uniformity to the verification procedure after Bihar had initially excluded Aadhaar as a primary document in its instructions to field officers. The Court directed the state to bring its processes in line with ECI standards, ensuring that Aadhaar remained part of the approved document list but only as an identity proof.

However, the ruling did not alter Aadhaar’s status. It did not elevate Aadhaar to citizenship proof. It simply reiterated that Aadhaar can support identification but cannot determine who is or is not a citizen, nor who has the legal right to vote.

Voluntary nature of Aadhaar–Voter ID linkage

Another reason for public confusion lies in the voluntary linkage policy. The ECI’s Form 6B enables citizens to share Aadhaar with electoral authorities to improve database accuracy. Yet the process remains voluntary, not compulsory. No voter can be removed merely for failing to provide an Aadhaar number.

This principle has been reaffirmed repeatedly. During court hearings, the ECI stated clearly that non-submission of Aadhaar cannot trigger deletion of names. States conducting SIR cannot create coercive conditions that treat Aadhaar as mandatory. Despite this, anecdotal reports from several districts suggested that field officials were demanding Aadhaar compulsorily, which contributed to the perception that Aadhaar had become a precondition for retaining voter status.

The Supreme Court’s intervention helped underline that no such requirement exists. The Court’s observations have been important in standardising expectations during electoral revision drives.

ECI's clarifications to court, states

As the SIR process progressed across multiple states, the ECI issued fresh clarifications that reached both the Supreme Court and state Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs). These clarifications emphasised that Aadhaar should be used strictly for identity verification of individual applicants. Aadhaar is not a tool for determining citizenship. It must not be used to justify the deletion of names based on a mismatch or non-existence in the Aadhaar database.

The ECI also reminded states that BLOs must treat Aadhaar like any other identity document. If discrepancies arise, BLOs must rely on established verification processes which include physical verification, household visits and alternative documentation. Aadhaar cannot override these mechanisms nor serve as stand-alone evidence of residence or citizenship.

Although these instructions aimed to correct implementation anomalies, their timing created confusion. Many states had already issued guidelines that contradicted ECI clarifications. By the time corrections reached field level, the SIR process was already facing operational and legal challenges.

State-wise differences in SIR implementation

India’s federal structure allows state election machinery to interpret ECI instructions differently, which contributed to divergent practices. Bihar’s initial decision to exclude Aadhaar from the list of accepted documents triggered the first round of confusion and ultimately required Supreme Court intervention. In contrast, several other states continued to accept Aadhaar without difficulty, although concerns about misuse and overreliance surfaced in some regions.

States such as West Bengal and Kerala raised more fundamental objections. Both governments argued before the Supreme Court that the SIR process itself risked disenfranchising genuine voters. Their petitions pointed out that inconsistent directives, lack of clarity on documentation and the potential for arbitrary deletions had created an environment of uncertainty.

The Supreme Court clubbed several petitions and is hearing the matter in detail. Until the hearings conclude, the SIR process remains under judicial scrutiny, with directions likely to shape the future of electoral roll revisions nationwide.

UIDAI's role in Aadhaar governance

While the Supreme Court and the ECI clarified Aadhaar’s role in voter verification, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) continued its parallel responsibilities related to Aadhaar security, authentication and database integrity. Several UIDAI actions indirectly influenced public understanding of Aadhaar’s scope.

One major initiative involved deactivation of over two crore Aadhaar numbers belonging to deceased individuals. UIDAI received information from state civil registration offices and flagged records to prevent misuse in banking, government transfers and private transactions. This exercise demonstrated that Aadhaar is a dynamic database rather than a citizenship registry, yet its scale created further questions about how electoral authorities might use Aadhaar data during roll revisions.

UIDAI also implemented expanded authentication rules for the public and private sectors. E-commerce platforms, travel companies and healthcare providers can now use Aadhaar authentication for service delivery after obtaining approval. The government framed this expansion as an ‘ease of living’ measure, but the widened usage blurred lines for citizens attempting to understand why electoral authorities still treated Aadhaar cautiously.

In addition, UIDAI announced plans for a redesigned Aadhaar card. The proposed version would display only a photograph and a QR code with embedded data. This minimalistic design not only aims to enhance privacy and security but also reinforces that Aadhaar’s function is to authenticate identity, not to store citizenship details.

Core reasons behind persistent confusion

Despite consistent legal definitions, confusion surrounding Aadhaar has persisted because of three overlapping factors.

First, the distinction between identity proof and citizenship proof is not intuitive for many Indians. Aadhaar’s reach, combined with its integration across government and private services, has created an impression that Aadhaar is the definitive national identity instrument. The limited statutory definition contradicts this perception.

Second, the ECI’s changing operational instructions during the SIR rollout contributed to mixed messages. Initial exclusions, later corrections, shifting forms and inconsistent district-level communication meant that voters heard different instructions depending on geography. Even though the Supreme Court intervened to resolve these inconsistencies, the gap between central instructions and local implementation widened confusion.

Third, state-wise differences in interpretation amplified the noise. Some states followed ECI guidance closely. Others, especially those opposed to aspects of the SIR process, offered alternative explanations that fuelled litigation and public uncertainty. Citizens receiving conflicting instructions from BLOs, state governments and court reports struggled to understand the correct position.

Current legal clarity on Aadhaar's role in electoral rolls

Despite the contested environment, the present legal position is clear. Aadhaar can be used for identification during electoral roll revisions, subject to verification checks such as household visits or alternative documents. Aadhaar cannot prove citizenship, nor can it serve as evidence for the granting or denying of voting rights. Non-submission of Aadhaar cannot lead to deletion of names.

The Supreme Court’s directions have established this framework, while the ECI’s clarifications continue to reinforce it. States must align their field-level instructions accordingly, ensuring that Aadhaar remains one of several identity documents rather than a compulsory or determinative proof for electoral eligibility.

The ongoing litigation on SIR implementation will further shape procedural guidelines, yet Aadhaar’s legal status is unlikely to change. As long as Aadhaar remains an identity instrument rather than a citizenship document, its role in voter verification will remain limited, nuanced and susceptible to misinterpretation whenever administrative instructions vary across states.