Home  > Recent Judgements  > SUPREME COURT EXAMINES WHETHER AADHAAR CAN BE USED AS PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE AND AGE

Jun-12- 2026

SUPREME COURT EXAMINES ALLEGED NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF RTE ACT IN PUNJAB: A CRITICAL TEST FOR EWS ADMISSIONS

Introduction

In a significant development with far-reaching implications for governance, electoral integrity and identity verification mechanisms in India, the Supreme Court has issued notices to the Central Government, State Governments and the Election Commission of India on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of birth.

The petition, titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, seeks judicial intervention to ensure that Aadhaar is used strictly for the purpose for which it was originally conceived proof of identity and not as evidence of citizenship or residence.

The case has reignited the long-standing debate surrounding the legal status of Aadhaar, the distinction between “resident” and “citizen”, and the growing dependence of public authorities on Aadhaar for access to various services and entitlements.

Background: Understanding Aadhaar

Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identification number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

The Aadhaar framework was introduced with the objective of creating a robust identity infrastructure to facilitate efficient delivery of welfare benefits and reduce duplication and fraud.

Importantly, Aadhaar is available to every “resident” of India. Under the Aadhaar Act, a resident is defined as an individual who has resided in India for at least 182 days during the twelve months immediately preceding the date of application for enrolment.

This distinction is crucial because eligibility for Aadhaar is based on residence and not citizenship.

What Triggered the PIL?

The petitioner contends that despite clear statutory provisions, Aadhaar is routinely being accepted by authorities across India as proof of:

  • Citizenship;
  • Domicile;
  • Address;
  • Date of birth; and
  • Age.

According to the petition, Aadhaar is being used for multiple purposes, including:

  • School admissions;
  • Property transactions;
  • Issuance of birth certificates;
  • Obtaining ration cards;
  • Issuance of driving licences;
  • Accessing government schemes; and
  • Registration of voters through Form-6.

The petitioner argues that this practice directly contradicts the Aadhaar Act and creates a legal fiction whereby possession of Aadhaar is treated as evidence of Indian citizenship.

Core Legal Issue Before the Court

The principal question before the Supreme Court is:

“Can Aadhaar, which is statutorily recognised only as proof of identity, be used as evidence of citizenship, domicile, address or date of birth?”

The answer to this question could significantly impact existing administrative practices across the country.

Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act: The Statutory Position

The petition relies heavily on Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, which expressly states:

“The Aadhaar number or the authentication thereof shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile.”

The language of Section 9 is clear and unambiguous.

The provision creates an explicit legislative distinction between:

  • Identity verification; and
  • Determination of citizenship or domicile.

Therefore, according to the petitioner, any administrative practice treating Aadhaar as proof of citizenship exceeds the scope of the statute.

UIDAI’s Clarification on Aadhaar’s Legal Status

The petitioner has also relied on a notification issued by UIDAI on 22 August 2023.

The notification clarified that Aadhaar:

  • Establishes identity;
  • Does not prove citizenship;
  • Does not establish domicile;
  • Is not conclusive proof of date of birth; and
  • Cannot independently determine a person’s residential status.

UIDAI has repeatedly emphasised that Aadhaar is merely an identity document linked to biometric and demographic information submitted during enrolment.

The petition argues that government departments and local authorities have disregarded these clarifications by continuing to accept Aadhaar as a foundational document for multiple purposes.

Challenge to Aadhaar Use in Voter Registration

One of the central aspects of the petition concerns the use of Aadhaar in Form-6, which is the application form for new voter registration.

The petitioner contends that Aadhaar is being accepted as proof of:

  • Date of birth; and
  • Residence.

According to the plea, this practice is inconsistent with:

  • Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016;
  • Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950; and
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petition argues that Section 23(4) permits Aadhaar to be used only for the purpose of identity verification and not for establishing eligibility criteria such as age or residence.

The petitioner seeks a declaration that the use of Aadhaar for these purposes in voter registration is unconstitutional and legally invalid.

Concerns Raised by the Petitioner

The PIL highlights several concerns arising from the expanded use of Aadhaar.

  1. Illegal Immigration

The petitioner argues that foreign nationals who satisfy the residency requirement of 182 days can obtain Aadhaar.

Once Aadhaar is obtained, such individuals may allegedly use it to secure additional documents, including:

  • Ration cards;
  • Driving licences;
  • Domicile certificates; and
  • Voter identity cards.

The petition contends that this creates a chain of documentation that may blur the distinction between residents and citizens.

  1. Electoral Integrity

The petitioner submits that accepting Aadhaar as proof of residence or age during voter registration may affect the accuracy of electoral rolls.

The plea raises concerns regarding:

  • Duplicate entries;
  • Inclusion of ineligible individuals; and
  • Difficulties in verifying citizenship.
  1. National Security

The petition argues that weak verification mechanisms could have implications for internal security and border management.

According to the petitioner, the unrestricted use of Aadhaar beyond identity verification creates vulnerabilities that require immediate policy intervention.

  1. Administrative Confusion

The petitioner further contends that different government departments follow inconsistent practices regarding acceptable documents, leading to uncertainty and misuse.

Background: The Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Education

The PIL highlights several concerns arising from the expanded use of Aadhaar.

  1. Illegal Immigration

The petitioner argues that foreign nationals who satisfy the residency requirement of 182 days can obtain Aadhaar.

Once Aadhaar is obtained, such individuals may allegedly use it to secure additional documents, including:

  • Ration cards;
  • Driving licences;
  • Domicile certificates; and
  • Voter identity cards.

The petition contends that this creates a chain of documentation that may blur the distinction between residents and citizens.

  1. Electoral Integrity

The petitioner submits that accepting Aadhaar as proof of residence or age during voter registration may affect the accuracy of electoral rolls.

The plea raises concerns regarding:

  • Duplicate entries;
  • Inclusion of ineligible individuals; and
  • Difficulties in verifying citizenship.
  1. National Security

The petition argues that weak verification mechanisms could have implications for internal security and border management.

According to the petitioner, the unrestricted use of Aadhaar beyond identity verification creates vulnerabilities that require immediate policy intervention.

  1. Administrative Confusion

The petitioner further contends that different government departments follow inconsistent practices regarding acceptable documents, leading to uncertainty and misuse.

Previous Judicial Pronouncements on Aadhaar

The legal status of Aadhaar has been examined extensively by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2018 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.

The Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar while emphasising that:

  • Aadhaar is primarily an identity mechanism;
  • Its use must be proportionate and backed by law;
  • Privacy is a fundamental right; and
  • Data collection and authentication must satisfy constitutional safeguards.

The Court recognised the importance of Aadhaar in welfare delivery but simultaneously warned against mission creep the expansion of Aadhaar beyond its intended purposes.

The present PIL effectively raises concerns regarding whether such mission creep is occurring through administrative practices.

Constitutional Dimensions of the Case

The matter involves several important constitutional principles.

Article 14: Equality Before Law –

The petitioner argues that arbitrary acceptance of Aadhaar for purposes not authorised by law violates Article 14.

When different authorities apply varying standards for determining citizenship and domicile, it may lead to unequal treatment.

Right to Privacy –

The increased use of Aadhaar across multiple sectors raises concerns regarding:

  • Data protection;
  • Surveillance risks; and
  • Excessive reliance on a single identifier.

Electoral Democracy –

Accurate electoral rolls are fundamental to free and fair elections.

The case therefore intersects with broader questions of democratic legitimacy and voter verification.

Possible Outcomes –

The Supreme Court may consider several possible courses of action:

  1. Issue guidelines clarifying the permissible uses of Aadhaar;
  2. Direct all government authorities to comply strictly with Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act;
  3. Seek a uniform national framework regarding acceptable documents for citizenship, domicile and age verification;
  4. Direct the Election Commission to revise Form-6 requirements;
  5. Require UIDAI to undertake greater public awareness regarding the limited scope of Aadhaar; or
  6. Leave the issue to legislative and executive authorities while issuing interpretative directions.

Any ruling in the matter is likely to have significant implications for government processes nationwide.

Broader Policy Questions

The case highlights an important policy dilemma:

How can India balance ease of access to services with the need for robust verification mechanisms?

While Aadhaar has streamlined welfare delivery and reduced duplication, over-reliance on a single identity document risks creating confusion regarding its legal status.

The distinction between identity, residence and citizenship is not merely technical—it lies at the heart of constitutional governance.

Aadhaar establishes who a person is.

It does not determine:

  • Whether the person is an Indian citizen;
  • Whether the person is domiciled in a particular State; or
  • Whether the person satisfies specific statutory eligibility conditions.

Maintaining this distinction is essential to preserve both administrative efficiency and constitutional safeguards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to seek responses from the Centre, States and the Election Commission mark an important step in clarifying the legal contours of Aadhaar.

At the core of the dispute lies a fundamental question: should a document created for identity verification evolve into a de facto instrument for establishing citizenship and residence?

The answer will shape the future of digital identity governance in India.

As the case progresses, the Court’s interpretation of Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act and related electoral provisions is expected to influence administrative practices across multiple sectors.

Until a final determination is made, the proceedings serve as a timely reminder that statutory limitations on identity documents must be respected and that convenience cannot override legislative intent.

The matter remains pending before the Supreme Court.