‘Issuance Of Passports Outsourced…’, SC On Plea Opposing Aadhaar Use In SIR

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that even the issuance of passports has been outsourced to private agencies, as it expressed scepticism over objections raised against the use of Aadhaar for verification in the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The bench was hearing pleas challenging the ongoing SIR exercise, including a filed by Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a nationwide revision of electoral rolls in all states.

Last year, the apex court had directed the Election Commission to include Aadhaar also as a document which can be submitted for SIR enumeration.

During the hearing, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing Upadhyay, opposed Aadhaar being used as a document for verification in the SIR exercise, and argued that it cannot be treated as a reliable document since it is issued through privately run Aadhaar centres.

However, Justice Bagchi pointed out that several public functions are today performed through private agencies. “Do you know that even your passport issuance is outsourced to a private company?” he asked, adding that mere involvement of private entities does not render a document unreliable.

“While issuing Aadhaar, the private person is performing a public duty,” observed the bench.

The bench said that if a document is recognised by statute, it cannot be discarded merely because a private entity is involved in its issuance, and added that any document can be forged, and even a passport can be forged.

The bench said that Aadhaar has consistently been recognised by the court as a valid identity document, but not as proof of citizenship. “We have never said Aadhaar can be used as the basis of citizenship. We have always said that the Election Commission can verify Aadhaar,” said the bench.

The bench observed that the list of documents prescribed for the SIR exercise need not have a direct nexus with citizenship in every case.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, alleged mass deletions of names from the voter list. The CJI said, “Additions and deletions are part of the electoral roll revision exercise.” In their rejoinder submissions, the petitioners questioned the transparency, timing and legal basis of the SIR exercise.

The bench heard rejoinder submissions from senior advocates Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Hansaria, advocate Prashant Bhushan, and petitioner-in-person, Yogendra Yadav.

It was argued before the court that no petitioner had sought the inclusion of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, and the court could not issue a mandamus without such a prayer.

Sibal contended that while the poll panel has plenary powers under Article 324 to conduct elections, the determination of citizenship lies exclusively with the Union government under the Citizenship Act.

Sibal submitted that electoral registration officers (EROs) cannot effectively decide citizenship while processing objections or deletions under Form 7.

Justice Bagchi observed that exclusion from electoral rolls does not amount to loss of citizenship per se. Sibal replied that the practical effect of such exclusions was disenfranchisement without due adjudication by the competent authority.

Yadav argued that the poll panel had not disputed the data or methodology he had placed before the court. He claimed that the SIR led to a sharp decline in the electoral population ratio in Bihar, pointing to “structural design defects” rather than accidental errors.

The apex court is expected to conclude the hearing on Thursday on a clutch of pleas challenging the SIR.