Can Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and ration cards be forged? The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar appears to have opened a Pandora’s box for the government as the Election Commission of India has raised a moot question before the Supreme Court —whether the Aadhaar, along with its own voter identity cards, are not authentic enough to be included at the data collection stage, in the ongoing SIR process.
The Supreme Court on Monday urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to reconsider its exclusion of Aadhaar and EPIC from the list of acceptable documents in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Patna, Bihar: On the Supreme Court hearing regarding the Bihar voter list revision, Congress spokesperson Abhay Dubey says, "...The Supreme Court had also directed that Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards, and ration cards should be considered. But the Election Commission did not… pic.twitter.com/ChkpDCvNJ9
— IANS (@ians_india) July 28, 2025
The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, underscored the constitutional principle of inclusion over exclusion, warning against what it called mass exclusion of voters due to procedural rigidities.
With three more days left for the publication of the draft electoral roll on August 1, the poll panel continued to resist the court’s suggestion, saying Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards could be forged easily.
The court’s observations came while hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the legality and constitutionality of the SIR directive issued on June 24. The petitioners, including the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), argue that the move violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution rights pertaining to equality, freedom, privacy, and electoral participation.
Justice Kant questioned the logic behind excluding Aadhaar and EPIC from the list of primary documents, pointing out that any of the 11 accepted documents can be forged. He stressed that the focus of the exercise should be mass inclusion, not exclusion, especially when Aadhaar and EPIC are widely held by Indian citizens and already used for identity verification in various government schemes.
“Any document on Earth can be forged. Maybe one EPIC in a thousand may not be genuine. That can be take up on a case-to-case basis. For that matter, any document on this Earth can be forged,” Justice Surya Kant said, adding Aadhaar and EPIC have a presumption of correctness as Aadhaar has a system of being authenticated when in use while EPIC was issued by the ECI itself.
ECI’s stand: Accuracy over assumptions
The poll panel through Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, defended the SIR process by invoking its constitutional mandate under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It contended that the revision was essential due to demographic shifts, urban migration, and an outdated electoral database that has not undergone an intensive revision in nearly two decades. He was referring to the digital photo identity cards issued by the ECI .
On ECI’s concerns related to Aadhaar cards that has prompted its exclusion, Justice Bagchi countered, “Suppose someone uploads the form with Aadhaar, why won’t you include it in the draft roll?”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for ADR, requested a stay on the finalisation of the rolls. However, Justice Kant reiterated the court’s earlier position that the process would not be stayed, even as it remains under scrutiny. “We can always quash the rolls if we find something wrong,” he assured, adding that judicial review remains intact despite procedural advancement.
This case is not merely about which documents are acceptable. It reveals broader tensions in India’s electoral process between security and accessibility, digital verification and privacy, and the state’s authority versus individual rights.
Aadhaar, for instance, remains controversial: While widely used for government benefits and increasingly accepted for voter registration, it is not mandatory for voting, following past Supreme Court rulings. Yet its exclusion at the data collection stage, even when voluntarily submitted, raises eyebrows.
Similarly, excluding EPIC the very card issued by the ECI to identify voters on the grounds of potential fraud seems paradoxical.
What lies ahead
The Supreme Court’s intervention signals the judiciary’s intent to closely monitor the SIR process in Bihar, especially as it may set the tone for similar exercises in other states ahead of crucial assembly and general elections. By emphasising mass inclusion, the court is steering the conversation toward a more citizen-centric approach. What emerges next could influence not just the voter list in Bihar, but the credibility and inclusiveness of India’s electoral democracy as a whole.
