The Legal Complexity of Aadhaar Cards as Voter ID: Implications for Citizenship and Electoral Rights in India

On September 8, the Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to accept Aadhaar cards as the 12th approved document for voter identity verification during Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR). This directive was issued despite the ECI's strong objections, as they worried illegal migrants could circumvent citizenship verification and enter electoral rolls due to the relative ease of obtaining Aadhaar cards. The Court clarified that while Aadhaar can serve as identity proof, it does not conclusively establish citizenship.

To understand this controversy, it's essential to examine the legal complexities surrounding citizenship in India, particularly regarding who qualifies as an Indian citizen and who has the right to participate in elections—a fundamental element of democracy.

The issue revolves around two distinct concepts. First, the Aadhaar card functions as 'Proof of Identity,' originally created to streamline India's welfare delivery system. It verifies identity for various purposes, including opening bank accounts, obtaining mobile connections, and accessing government benefits. However, Aadhaar was never designed to establish citizenship.

This raises a critical question: must individuals be Indian citizens to access welfare programs? The recent directive suggests yes, as Aadhaar is now linked to voting eligibility, creating a legal dichotomy and source of conflict.

Second, Article 326 of the Constitution clearly restricts voting rights to Indian citizens, supported by the framework of The Citizenship Act of 1955. By connecting Aadhaar's welfare function to personal identity verification, a parallel documentation system has emerged.

The landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case provided definitive judicial clarity on this matter. The Supreme Court upheld Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, which explicitly states that an Aadhaar card "shall not, by itself, confer any right of or be proof of citizenship." This judgment established a clear legal distinction between Aadhaar's role in welfare distribution and the 'right to vote.'

The Court's new directive to the ECI will likely create tensions between the Central Government and the Judiciary as it directly impacts the voter eligibility verification process through the SIR exercise. The implications for West Bengal, Assam, and other northeastern states, where illegal immigration and demographic change are major concerns, could be profound.

The Assam Movement (1979-1985) against illegal immigration was driven by fears of demographic transformation and contributed to evolving definitions of Indian citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 initially granted citizenship by birth through 'jus soli' (right of soil) to everyone born in India. However, 1986 amendments, influenced by political concerns in Assam, restricted this by requiring at least one parent to be an Indian citizen.

This shifted the principle toward 'jus sanguinis' (right of blood). A subsequent 1992 amendment removed gender bias, granting citizenship if either parent was Indian at birth.

A significant vulnerability in India's legal system stems from two instruments governing a person's status: the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Citizenship Act of 1955. The former simply defines a "foreigner" as someone who isn't an Indian citizen. The Citizenship Act defines an "illegal migrant" as a foreigner entering without valid documents or overstaying a visa.

Indian law doesn't distinguish between undocumented citizens and irregular entrants. However, the recently implemented Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, provides opportunities for individuals fleeing persecution, including those from Bangladesh and Myanmar in Northeast India. The situation becomes more complex in four Assam districts—Barpeta, Dhubri, Morigaon, and Nagaon—where Aadhaar cardholders exceed projected populations by up to 103%. This prompted the state to suspend issuing new Aadhaar cards citing national security concerns.

These concerns extend beyond Assam. According to West Bengal's Chief Electoral Officer's Office, out of 10.04 lakh applications for new voter registration, more than 2.43 lakh were rejected. The highest rejection rates occurred in border districts: Murshidabad, North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas, Malda, and Nadia. This anxiety has led other Northeastern states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland, to implement their own measures, indicating the need for coordinated regional response to this security concern.

A fundamental question remains: who has jurisdiction over such matters, given that India's citizenship issues are influenced by the 1947 Partition and the creation of Bangladesh and Pakistan?

Following the Assam Accord, a legal framework was established to determine a person's status as a 'foreigner' through the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, which established one hundred Foreigner Tribunals across Assam. Thirty-six are permanent, while the remaining sixty-four require periodic extensions from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). To prove Indian nationality, an accused 'foreigner' must provide: conclusive proof of ancestral registration in pre-1971 electoral rolls, definitive land records, or evidence of ancestral presence before 1971. Meanwhile, Northeastern states like Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura have implemented measures to manage those affected by Assam's eviction notices.

This raises another question: does exclusion from voter rolls legally affect someone's classification as a 'non-citizen'?

While the Supreme Court's recent directive may appear straightforward, its implications are far-reaching. It reveals potential vulnerabilities in addressing 'illegal immigrants' and the 'citizenship' debate. As the current SIR process expands nationally, these questions become unavoidable. Bihar's experience suggests significant challenges will arise when implementing SIR in states bordering Bangladesh and Myanmar.

Illegal infiltration represents a national security concern. India must strengthen legal frameworks governing identity, citizenship, and voting rights—principles enshrined in the Constitution. The judiciary's role is increasingly critical. The persistent question is whether the judiciary is prepared to recommend changes to legal frameworks governing citizenship, identity, and illegal migration in the Northeast and West Bengal, especially if SIR becomes a national exercise. India, having leveraged Aadhaar for effective governance, must now use this infrastructure to address national security threats from illegal migration.

(Swapan Dasgupta is a Distinguished Fellow at India Foundation. Arpan A Chakravarty is a Research Fellow at India Foundation, New Delhi. His research focuses on law and national security.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author