|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre, States and Election Commission of India on a PIL seeking to ensure that Aadhaar is only used as proof of identity, and not as proof of citizenship, domicile, address, and date of birth.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Centre and State governments on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The PIL sought directions to restrict the use of Aadhaar strictly as an identity proof, alleging that its current use across multiple administrative and electoral processes goes beyond the limits prescribed under law. It is submitted that Aadhaar, as clarified under Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and reiterated in UIDAI notifications, is not a document of citizenship, domicile, address, or date of birth The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought a declaration that the use of Aadhaar as proof of date of birth and residence in Form 6 for new voter registration is contrary to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, "void and inoperative." According to the plea, Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act expressly states that Aadhaar is not evidence of citizenship or domicile, while a UIDAI notification dated August 22, 2023, clarifies that Aadhaar is proof of identity only and not proof of citizenship, address or date of birth. The petition contended that despite this legal position, Aadhaar is being widely used for school admissions, voter registration, obtaining ration cards, driving licences, property purchases and other purposes requiring proof of citizenship, residence or age. The petitioner has alleged that infiltrators and illegal immigrants are obtaining Aadhaar cards through weak verification mechanisms and thereafter using Aadhaar as a foundational document to secure other identity documents, including voter identity cards. The plea claimed this affects welfare distribution and the integrity of the electoral process. The PIL further argued that Form-6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 permits Aadhaar to be submitted as proof of date of birth and residence, which, according to the petitioner, is inconsistent with the Aadhaar Act and UIDAI circulars. It also relied upon various judicial pronouncements, including decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, to contend that Aadhaar cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age. The petition also invoked Articles 14, 19, 21, 29, 326, 327 and 355 of the Constitution, contending that illegal infiltration impacts electoral integrity, demographic balance, welfare schemes and national security. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgement in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India, which had described large-scale illegal migration as "external aggression and internal disturbance." Among other reliefs, the petition sought directions to authorities to ensure that Aadhaar is accepted only as proof of identity in the "spirit of Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act 2016 and UIDAI Notification dated August 22, 2023". (ANI)
|
