The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday questioned objections to using Aadhaar as a verification doc within the Particular Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that even the issuance of passports has been outsourced to non-public companies.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was listening to petitions difficult the continued SIR train, together with a plea filed by Ashwini Upadhyay searching for a nationwide revision of electoral rolls in all States.
Throughout the listening to, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, showing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, opposed the Court docket allowing Aadhaar for use as a doc for verification within the SIR course of. Final yr, the Supreme Court docket had directed the ECI to incorporate Aadhaar additionally as a doc which might be submitted for SIR enumeration.
Hansaria argued that Aadhaar couldn’t be handled as a dependable doc since it’s issued via privately run Aadhaar centres.
“Aadhaar is issued by privately run Aadhaar centres. It can’t be a related doc for SIR,” Hansaria submitted.
Justice Bagchi, nevertheless, responded by declaring that a number of public capabilities are right this moment carried out via non-public companies.
“Have you learnt that even your passport issuance is outsourced to a non-public firm?” the choose requested.
When Hansaria sought to differentiate Aadhaar on the bottom that it doesn’t require authentication, Justice Bagchi noticed that the mere involvement of personal entities doesn’t render a doc unreliable.
“Any doc might be solid. Even a passport might be solid. Whereas issuing Aadhaar, the non-public particular person is performing a public responsibility,” the choose mentioned.
Hansaria clarified that his objection was not based mostly on the potential of forgery. “Aadhaar might be genuinely issued, however there is no such thing as a management. An individual can get a certificates from the municipal company and Aadhaar is issued,” he argued. He submited that anyone who’s residing in India is eligible for Aadhaar. “Aadhaar quantity or authentication doesn’t by itself confer any proper or proof of citizenship or of domicile,” he submitted.
Responding to this, Justice Bagchi reiterated that Aadhaar has persistently been recognised by the Court docket as a legitimate identification doc, although not as proof of citizenship.
“Aadhaar is an acknowledged doc of identification. We’ve got by no means mentioned Aadhaar can be utilized as the idea of citizenship. We’ve got all the time mentioned that the Election Fee can confirm Aadhaar,” the choose mentioned.
The Bench additionally famous that the checklist of paperwork prescribed for the SIR train needn’t have a direct nexus with citizenship in each case.
“These eleven paperwork needn’t all the time have a transparent relation to citizenship. They could be of varied species relying on the aim the Election Fee has fastened to serve, in train of its plenary powers. Your argument is definitely going cross-purposes with the Election Fee’s view,” Justice Bagchi noticed.
Hansaria, in response, submitted that Aadhaar may at greatest be used solely to stop duplication of entries within the electoral rolls.
Individually, the senior counsel additionally addressed allegations that the SIR train was politically motivated. He contended that deletions from electoral rolls had occurred throughout occasion traces.
“Each political occasion has gained elections regardless of the deletions. It can’t be mentioned that the train was executed to favour any explicit political occasion. No motive might be imputed to the Election Fee,” Hansaria submitted.
The Court docket additionally heard different petitioners, who oppose SIR, right this moment. Listening to will proceed tomorrow.
Case : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 634/2025
 of electoral rolls, observing that even the issuance of...){kind=link}