On September 8, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider Aadhaar cards as the 12th prescribed document for establishing a voter's identity in Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The directive came despite strong opposition from the ECI. Considering the relative ease with which Aadhar cards can be obtained, the ECI felt illegal migrants could bypass citizenship verification and get included in the electoral rolls. The Court indicated that Aadhar can be a form of identity, but it will not be a conclusive proof of citizenship.

In assessing this controversy, it is instructive to view the legal muddle surrounding the citizenship debate. This is particularly important in determining who is Indian and who has the right to participate in the electoral process, a key feature of democracy.

At the heart of the matter are two distinct concepts. The first is the Aadhar card as the 'Proof of Identity', specially designed to manage India's welfare delivery system. It also authenticates identity for multiple functions, such as opening bank accounts, obtaining a mobile phone connection, and receiving state-sponsored benefits. While Aadhar served a functional purpose in a modern welfare state, it doesn't and was never intended to establish citizenship.

Stemming from this is a question: does a person have to be an Indian citizen of India to avail of welfare schemes? As the latest directive dictates, the answer appears to be yes, as Aadhar is linked to a person's ability to vote. This creates the first dichotomy and a source of legal conflict.

Second, Article 326 of the Constitution is clear in that the franchise is restricted to citizens of India. This Constitutional right is complemented by the legal framework of The Citizenship Act of 1955. With the welfare function of Aadhar linked 'proof of identity' of a person, a parallel system of documentation is established.

The landmark........

© NDTV