New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 28, 2026) strongly countered objections raised against using Aadhaar as a verification document for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Court observed that in the modern era, several essential public functions, including the issuance of passports, involve private agencies, and such involvement does not automatically make a document unreliable.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a cluster of petitions challenging the ongoing SIR exercise. Among these is a high-profile plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a nationwide revision of electoral rolls across all States to ensure the removal of duplicate or ineligible entries.

The core of the day’s debate centered on whether Aadhaar is a "reliable" enough document to be used for verifying voters. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, argued that Aadhaar should not be permitted as a verification tool in the SIR process.

He pointed out that last year, the Supreme Court had directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to include Aadhaar as one of the documents voters could submit for enumeration. However, Mr. Hansaria contended that because Aadhaar cards are issued through "privately run Aadhaar centres," they lack the official sanctity required for a sensitive exercise like voter revision.

“Aadhaar is issued by privately run Aadhaar centres. It cannot be a relevant document for SIR,” Hansaria submitted before the Bench.

The Bench was not convinced by the argument that private involvement equals unreliability. Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the government frequently collaborates with private entities to deliver public services.

“Do you know that even your passport issuance is outsourced to a private company?” Justice Bagchi asked the Senior Counsel.

When Mr. Hansaria tried to distinguish Aadhaar by arguing that it does not require the same level of rigorous authentication as a passport, the Court maintained that the involvement of a private entity is not a ground for disqualification.

“Any document can be forged. Even a passport can be forged. While issuing Aadhaar, the private person is performing a public duty,” the judge observed.

A major point of contention in the SIR exercise has been the fear that it might be used to determine citizenship. Mr. Hansaria argued that Aadhaar is too easy to obtain—noting that a person can get one simply by producing a certificate from a municipal corporation. He reminded the Court that an Aadhaar number does not confer any right to, or proof of, citizenship or domicile.

Responding to this, Justice Bagchi clarified the Court’s long-standing position: Aadhaar is a document of identity, not citizenship.

“Aadhaar is an acknowledged document of identity. We have never said Aadhaar can be used as the basis of citizenship. We have always said that the Election Commission can verify Aadhaar,” the judge stated.

The Court further explained that the list of documents used for the SIR exercise (currently eleven approved documents) does not necessarily need to have a direct link to citizenship. The ECI uses its plenary powers to fix these documents for the specific purpose of identifying residents and ensuring the electoral roll is accurate.

During the hearing, the Senior Counsel also addressed the political sensitivity surrounding the SIR exercise. There have been allegations from various quarters that the deletion of names from voter lists during the revision process was politically motivated.

However, Mr. Hansaria clarified that deletions had occurred across party lines and were not targeted at any specific group.

“Every political party has won elections despite the deletions. It cannot be said that the exercise was done to favour any particular political party. No motive can be imputed to the Election Commission,” he submitted.

For those unfamiliar with the term, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a comprehensive "deep cleaning" of the voter lists. Unlike the routine annual updates where only minor changes are made, the SIR involves:

House-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
Fresh enumeration where voters may be asked to show identity documents.
Removal of "Ghost Voters": Deleting names of people who have died, moved away, or have duplicate entries.

The ECI maintains that the SIR is essential for a healthy democracy, especially in states with high migration or rapid urbanization, to ensure that only "ordinarily resident" citizens are on the list.

The Supreme Court’s observations today suggest a pragmatic approach toward digital identity and private-public partnerships in governance. By comparing Aadhaar issuance to the outsourced model of Passport Seva Kendras, the Court signaled that digital verification is here to stay, provided it is used as a tool for identification and not as a conclusive proof of citizenship.

The Court will continue hearing the other petitioners who oppose the SIR exercise tomorrow.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 634/2025