“Aadhaar Cannot Be Final Proof”: SC on Bihar Voter List

• The Supreme Court, hearing a petition against Bihar’s voter list revision (SIR), has stated that the Election Commission is right in saying that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as final proof of citizenship without verification.
• Petitioners, represented by Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan, argued that the revision process is flawed and could lead to the wrongful removal of millions of names.
• Sibal cited examples of living people being marked as deceased and claimed that the forms used are inadequate, with many Bihar residents lacking the required documents.

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 12th Aug: In a pivotal hearing concerning the controversial voter list revision in Bihar, the Supreme Court today made a key observation, stating that the Election Commission is correct in asserting that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as the final proof of citizenship without proper verification. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi heard arguments challenging the constitutional validity of the “Special Integrated Revision” (SIR) of the state’s voter lists.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that the process is rife with “major irregularities” and that millions of names could be wrongfully removed. He cited an example from a small constituency where 12 people were marked as deceased despite being alive. Sibal contended that the forms provided by the Election Commission were inadequate and that many citizens in Bihar lack the specific documents required, potentially leading to their disenfranchisement.

The Election Commission, represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, maintained that the list is merely a “draft roll” and that minor errors can be corrected. However, the bench, and particularly Justice Bagchi, expressed concern, stating that if the preparatory steps for the draft roll were not correctly followed, it would be a “serious matter.”

Adding to the petitioners’ claims, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Election Commission has not provided a breakdown of the 6.5 million names it plans to remove. He also claimed that a whistleblower provided lists from two districts where a significant percentage of voters who had filled out the necessary forms were mysteriously marked as “not recommended.”

Justice Kant, however, pushed back on the petitioners’ claims of widespread disenfranchisement, pointing out that if a large majority of the state’s 79 million voters had responded to the revision process, it would contradict the claim that millions of voters were missing. The court said it wants to determine if the petitioners’ allegations are based on “ground reality” or just “apprehension.” The hearing will continue as the court seeks a more detailed explanation from the Election Commission.