The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response of the
Centre and States on a plea alleging misuse of the Unique Identification
Authority of India-issued Aadhaar cards as proof of citizenship, domicile and
residential address, and seeking directions to restrict its use strictly for
identity verification.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V
Mohana issued notices to the Centre and all the states and UTs on a plea filed
by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and tagged it with the pending similar
matters.
The plea has sought directions to the Centre, states
and the Election Commission to ensure that Aadhaar is used as a proof of
identity and not as a proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of
birth.
The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, also
sought directions that the use of Aadhaar as a proof of date of birth and
residence in the application form for new voter registration be considered
against Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, Section 23(4) of the RPA, 1950 and
Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 expressly
states that 'Aadhaar is not the evidence of citizenship or domicile'. The
Unique Identification Authority of India notification dated August 22, 2023
clearly states that 'Aadhaar is proof of identity, not of citizenship, address
or date of birth'...
"Despite this, Aadhaar is not only being used
as a proof of age, citizenship and domicile for school admission, property
purchase and to obtain a birth certificate, ration card, driving licence but
also being used in the application form for new voter registration (Form-6) as
a proof of date of birth and proof of residence. And thus, infiltrators and
illegal immigrants are obtaining various documents using Aadhaar," the
plea said.
The petition contended that the existing
verification mechanism under Form-6 is inadequate and might allow individuals
without proper supporting documents to be included in the electoral database.
The plea sought a comprehensive overhaul of the verification framework
used in electoral processes and proposed the establishment of a high-powered
monitoring committee comprising a retired Supreme Court judge along with
cybersecurity and forensic experts to oversee reforms.