In a brief but engaging hearing at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Election Commission of India (ECI) once again clarified that Aadhaar is being used strictly as a proof of identity, not as proof of citizenship or date of birth, for adding names to the electoral roll. The courtroom saw quick back-and-forth discussions, with the bench repeatedly reminding the petitioner that the law itself allows Aadhaar to be used for identification.
“The statutory provision is clear,” the bench observed, “and a UIDAI notification cannot override Parliament.”
Background
The matter arose from an application filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has been pushing for restrictions on Aadhaar’s use in Form 6, the standard application used by new voters. Upadhyay argues that Aadhaar is sometimes being treated as proof of age or citizenship, which, in his view, could create loopholes in voter registration.
The ECI’s reply-filed through its Secretary, Santosh Kumar Dubey-took a firm line. The Commission pointed out that Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, inserted by the 2021 amendment, expressly permits Aadhaar-based identity verification to prevent duplicate voter registrations.
To support its stand, the ECI cited a 2023 UIDAI office memorandum and Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, both of which clearly state that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, residence, or date of birth. It also referenced recent judicial precedents, including a Bombay High Court ruling and the Supreme Court’s own judgment in Saroj v. IFFCO Tokio, where Aadhaar was rejected as valid age proof.
Court’s Observations
During last week’s hearing-and repeated in spirit today-the bench appeared unconvinced by the petitioner’s insistence that Aadhaar should be barred from Form 6 entirely. One judge leaned forward and remarked, almost conversationally, “As long as Section 23(4) exists, we can’t stop Aadhaar from being used for identity. The law allows it.”
There was also a subtle nudge to the petitioner that policy choices already made by Parliament cannot be undone indirectly through court orders. The bench noted that statutory provisions carry more weight than circulars or notifications issued by administrative bodies.
The atmosphere in court was measured but pointed. At one moment, as the petitioner attempted to bring up the possibility of misuse in the field, a judge gently cut in: “Concerns may be valid, but the remedy is not to pretend the law says something it doesn’t.”
Decision
By the end of the brief exchange, the Court indicated that Aadhaar’s use in Form 6 cannot be barred so long as the statute permits identity verification through Aadhaar. The ECI’s affidavit also confirmed that it has already issued updated instructions -dated 9 September 2025-to all Chief Electoral Officers, clarifying that Aadhaar must be used only for identity, exactly as the law states.
The matter now rests with the Supreme Court’s final direction, which reiterated that Aadhaar’s role in voter registration is limited strictly to identity confirmation under Section 23(4) of the RP Act, 1950. The hearing concluded with that clarification.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Others