Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Restriction On Aadhaar Use For Voter Registration To Curb Illegal Immigration

The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which sought restrictions on the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, domicile, address, and date of birth in order to curb infiltration and illegal immigration.

The petition emphasized that infiltration caused severe strain on India's finite resources, leading to the deprivation of food, water, and livelihoods for rightful citizens in violation of the Directive Principles under Article 39.

Furthermore, because of administrative corruption, illegal immigrants allegedly managed to procure fraudulent identity proofs for minimal costs, allowing them to illegally occupy border lands and compromise the cultural rights guaranteed to local populations under Article 29.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice in the matter and tagged the plea with the other similar PIL pending adjudication.

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay appeared for the Petitioner.

While referring to a similar filed matter, the Chief Justice said, "This is similar to the plea you have earlier filed. There is overlapping, but at the same time there is connectivity...both may be heard together."

The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, filed the plea against the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, and all State Governments and Union Territories. The petitioner averred that despite Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and subsequent UIDAI notifications expressly clarifying that Aadhaar is merely a proof of identity and not an evidence of citizenship, domicile, or date of birth, the said document was being extensively misused across the country.

The Petition, filed by AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey, submitted, "Provisions of the AADHAAR Act expressly states that “AADHAAR is not the evidence of citizenship or domicile”. The UIDAI Notifications clearly states that “AADHAAR is proof of identity, not of citizenship, address or date of birth”. There are various judicial pronouncements that AADHAAR isn’t the proof of age. All residents including foreigner are entitled to obtain AADHAAR and after residing in India for merely 182 days. AADHAAR can be obtained from common service centres operated by private persons on the recommendation of Village Pradhan, Municipal Councillor and even by using a Rent Agreement. Despite this, the AADHAAR is not only being used as a proof of age, citizenship & domicile for school admission, property purchase and to obtain birth certificate, ration card, driving licence but also being used in Application Form for New Voter Registration (Form-6) as a proof of date of birth & proof of residence. And thus, infiltrators & illegal immigrants are obtaining various documents using the AADHAAR."

It was further submitted by the petitioner that weak and easily manipulable verification processes enabled illegal immigrants and infiltrators to surreptitiously procure Aadhaar cards. The petitioner contended that such infiltrators subsequently used Aadhaar as a foundational document to obtain other statutory proofs, such as birth certificates, ration cards, driving licences, and voter identity cards, thereby altering local demographics and unlawfully availing themselves of state-sponsored welfare schemes meant for citizens.

It was also submitted that the inclusion of AADHAAR in Form-6 as a proof of date of birth and residence, in effect, permits an applicant to seek inclusion in electoral roll merely based on establishing identity, whereas declaration prescribed under Form-6 envisages not only proof of identity but also supporting evidence of eligibility, including place of birth/residence. Consequently, acceptance of AADHAAR alone, without accompanying proof of place of birth & other eligibility criteria, dilutes the Form-6, which requires furnishing of prescribed documents. It leads to the inclusion of electors without verifying the qualifications as provided under Sections 16 and 19 of the RPA, 1950, the plea said.

The petitioner particularly challenged the inclusion of Aadhaar in the Application Form for New Voter Registration (Form-6) as a valid proof of date of birth and residence. It was argued that such inclusion ran counter to Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, statutory notifications, and settled judicial precedents, thereby violating Articles 14, 19, 21, and 29 of the Constitution of India.

"While RPA Section 19 mandates that a citizen be 18 years of age and resident in the constituency to be included in the electoral roll, Aadhaar does not support these claims as it is only a proof of identity. The AADHAAR can be easily obtained from Common Service Centres by enclosing a letter from Parshad/Pradhan. Therefore, the Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to ensure that only Indian citizens decide polity and policy of the country, not Pakistani, Afghan, Rohingya, Bangladeshi & Kuki infiltrators / illegal immigrants", the plea said.

The petitioner submitted that the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants and the systemic failure to detect, detain, and deport them directly violated the constitutional mandates enshrined under Articles 326 (Universal Adult Suffrage), 327 (Power of Parliament to legislate on elections), and 355 (Duty of the Union to protect States) of the Constitution of India.

It was argued that the continuous residency of illegal entities subverts the fundamental rights guaranteed to genuine Indian citizens under Articles 14 (Equality before Law), 19 (Protection of Certain Rights), and 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). Furthermore, the petitioner contended that such surreptitious entry and settlement constitute punishable offences under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically referencing Sections 111 (Organised Crime), 113, 147, and 152 (Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India).

To illustrate the scale of immigration, the petitioner cited historical statements made by government officials and agencies. In 1997, the then Home Minister stated in Parliament that 10 million illegal migrants resided in India, a figure supported by a 1998 report detailing distributions across states like West Bengal and Assam. Subsequent statements by Ministers of State for Home in 2004 and 2016 estimated the numbers at over 1.2 crore and 2 crore illegal Bangladeshi migrants respectively, while census data and statistical analyses highlighted an unabated, surreptitious influx over the decades.

A comprehensive 1998 report by the Governor of Assam to the Centre highlighted that the continuous influx altered demographic patterns, threatened to reduce the indigenous population to a minority, and fueled regional insurgency. Similarly, the Law Commission of India, in its 175th Report in 2000, noted that illegal migration from Bangladesh and other neighboring nations posed a grave threat to national security, democracy, and strategic border tracts, particularly affecting the North-Eastern regions and Jammu & Kashmir.

A detailed constitutional analysis of Article 355 was presented to demonstrate that the Union has an absolute, mandatory obligation to protect states against "external aggression" and "internal disturbance". The petitioner argued that infiltration met both criteria by damaging the nation's economy, changing demographics, inciting internal unrest, and forcing state governments to adopt populist measures to remain in power, thereby failing to ensure that governance is carried out in accordance with the Constitution.

Finally, the petitioner interpreted Articles 326 and 327 harmoniously with Article 355, arguing that the right to vote under adult suffrage was strictly reserved for citizens. The dilution of the voter pool by non-citizens holding fabricated documents effectively neutralized the votes of genuine citizens, rendering their constitutional freedoms under Article 19 a nullity and violating the principle of equality under Article 14 by treating unequals equally.

The plea prayed, "direct the Centre, States and Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to ensure that the AADHAAR Card is used as a proof of identity only, not as a proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of birth in spirit of Section 9 of the AADHAAR Act 2016 and UIDAI Notification dated 22.8.2023...b) direct and declare that use of AADHAAR as a proof of date of birth and residence in the application form for new voter registration is against Section 9 of the AADHAAR Act 2016, Section 23(4) of the RPA 1950 and Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, void and inoperative."

Accordingly, the Court issued notice and listed the matter for a further date.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) NO. 654/2026]