New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre and States to file reply on a plea alleging that Aadhaar cards are being misused as proof of citizenship, domicile and residence contrary to their intended purpose as identity documents.
Issuing notice to Centre and others, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana tagged the matter with the pending similar matters.
The plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has sought directions to the Centre, states and the Election Commission to ensure that Aadhaar is treated only as a proof of identity and not as a proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of birth.
The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, sought directions declaring the use of Aadhaar as proof of date of birth and residence in applications for fresh voter registration as contrary to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Article 14 of the Constitution.
According to the petition, Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act expressly provides that Aadhaar is not evidence of citizenship or domicile. It further relied on a notification issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on August 22, 2023, which clarified that Aadhaar serves only as proof of identity and not as proof of citizenship, address or date of birth.
The petitioner contended that despite these provisions, Aadhaar is routinely accepted as proof of age, citizenship and domicile for various purposes, including school admissions, property transactions, birth certificates, ration cards, driving licences and voter registration. The plea alleged that such practices enable illegal immigrants and infiltrators to obtain official documents using Aadhaar.
It was further argued that the existing verification process under Form-6 for voter registration is inadequate and may allow individuals lacking proper supporting documents to be included in electoral rolls.
The petition also sought a comprehensive review of the electoral verification framework and proposed the constitution of a high-powered monitoring committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and comprising cybersecurity and forensic experts, to oversee necessary reforms.