Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi  held that Aadhaar card is not a valid proof of citizenship as per Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016; the Election Commission of India justified its exclusion from the list of citizenship documents during the Bihar Special Intensive Revision, clarifying that Aadhaar serves only as proof of identity—not nationality—while the Supreme Court noted that citizenship determination lies with the Ministry of Home Affairs and cautioned against last-minute disenfranchisement ahead of elections. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India (2025). 

What was the Background of Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India Case ? 

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) ordered a "Special Intensive Revision" (SIR)  of electoral rolls in Bihar in June 2024.  
• This is the first time in India's history that such an exercise has been undertaken by the ECI. Unlike regular revisions of voter lists, this SIR specifically targets voters who were enrolled after 2003 and requires them to prove their citizenship using only 11 specified documents. 
• The SIR is not recognised in the Representation of the People Act or related rules 
• It differs from both "intensive revision" (complete fresh preparation of rolls) and "summary revision" (updating existing rolls) 
• The ECI created an arbitrary cut-off date of 2003, affecting millions of voters 
• The ECI specified 11 documents as acceptable proof of citizenship 
• Notably excluded were: 
  • Aadhaar cards (despite being widely used and accepted under the Representation of People Act) 
  • Voter ID cards (ironically, issued by the ECI itself) 
  • Ration cards 
  • MNREGA job cards 
  • Birth certificates 
• Approximately 4.74 crore voters out of Bihar's 8 crore total voters require verification 
• The exercise disproportionately affects marginalised communities including Muslims, Dalits, and poor migrant workers 
• Many of the required documents are possessed by only a small percentage of Bihar's population (e.g., passports by only 2.5%) 
• Constitutional Violations 
  • The petitioners argue that the SIR violates several constitutional provisions: 
    • Article 14: Equal protection under law (due to discriminatory treatment) 
    • Article 19: Freedom of movement (affecting migrants) 
    • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty 
    • Articles 325 & 326: Right to vote and universal adult franchise 
• Procedural Irregularities 
  • Timing: The exercise was initiated just months before Bihar's scheduled November 2025 elections 
  • Burden of proof: Shifts the responsibility from the state to citizens to prove their eligibility 
  • Inadequate timelines: Voters given insufficient time to arrange required documents 
• Discrimination Concerns 
  • The process appears to target specific communities disproportionately 
  • Creates different standards for different categories of people 
  • Potentially disenfranchises voters who have been exercising their franchise for decades 
• The Central Controversy 
  • The heart of the dispute lies in the ECI's authority to determine citizenship. While the ECI claims powers under Article 326 of the Constitution, critics argue that: 
  • Citizenship determination is primarily the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the ECI 
  • Aadhaar exclusion is particularly problematic since the Representation of People Act recognizes it as valid identification 
  • Practical impossibility of the exercise given the tight timelines and document requirements 
  • Democratic principles are at stake when long-time voters face potential disenfranchisement 
• This case raises fundamental questions about: 
  • The balance between electoral integrity and voting rights 
  • The role of different constitutional bodies in determining citizenship 
  • The procedural safeguards necessary for any electoral roll revision 
  • The timing and manner of such exercises in relation to upcoming elections 
  • The outcome of this case will likely set important precedents for how electoral roll revisions are conducted across India and the extent of the ECI's powers in matters relating to citizenship verification. 
• The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, with the next hearing scheduled for 28th July, 2025. The ECI has been directed to file its counter-affidavit by 21th July, 2025, and the draft electoral roll publication (originally scheduled for August 1, 2025) has been effectively stayed pending the court's decision. 
• The case represents a significant test of India's democratic institutions and the balance between ensuring electoral integrity and protecting fundamental voting rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the petitions raised "an important question which goes to the very root of the functioning of the democracy in the country - the right to vote." 
• The bench noted that three critical issues were involved in the case: (a) the very powers of the Election Commission to undertake the exercise; (b) the procedure and manner in which the exercise is being undertaken; and (c) the timing, including the timelines given for preparation of draft electoral roll, seeking objections and making the final electoral roll, which are very short considering that Bihar elections are due in November 2025. 
• Justice Dhulia observed that "citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA," questioning the ECI's authority to make determinations on citizenship matters. 
• The Court expressed serious doubts about the realistic nature of the timelines, with Justice Dhulia stating: "We have a serious doubt whether this timeline is realistic. It is a question of practicality." 
• Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI's decision to disenfranchise persons already on the electoral roll would "compel this individual to appeal against decision and go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election," highlighting the procedural burden and potential offence to democratic rights. 
• The bench questioned the exclusion of Aadhaar cards, noting that "many documents specified by the ECI are based on Aadhaar itself" and asked why this fundamental identification document cannot be included when all specified documents relate to identity rather than citizenship. 
• The Court agreed with Senior Advocate Singhvi's submission that "disenfranchising even one single eligible voter affects the level playing field, hits democracy and hits the basic structure," recognising the constitutional significance of electoral participation. 
• Justice Dhulia observed regarding the timing: "The question is why you are making this exercise relatable to an election coming in November, if it is an exercise that can be independent of the election for the whole of the country," expressing concern about the proximate timing to the electoral process and potential offence to electoral fairness. 

What is Definition of Citizen under Indian Constitution? 

• Under Article 5 of the Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and was born in the territory of India, or either of whose parents was born in the territory of India, or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution, shall be a citizen of India. 
• Article 6 provides that notwithstanding Article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution if he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, and has fulfilled the prescribed residence and registration requirements. 
• Article 7 stipulates that notwithstanding Articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India, except where such person has returned to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return. 
• Under Article 8, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is residing. 
• Article 9 declares that no person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 6 or Article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State. 
• Article 10 provides that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen. 
• Article 11 empowers Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law, stating that nothing in the foregoing provisions shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. 
• The constitutional framework establishes that citizenship is determined primarily through birth, descent, domicile, and residence criteria as enumerated in Articles 5 through 11, with Parliament having the ultimate authority to legislate on citizenship matters under Article 11.