The Supreme Court of India on Monday observed that a proposal to restrict the issuance of new Aadhaar cards exclusively to children up to six years of age would require legislative intervention. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that such a significant shift in policy and legal framework falls within the domain of the Parliament and the Union Government rather than the judiciary.
The observations came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay. The petitioner sought a directive for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to halt the issuance of new Aadhaar cards to adults and adolescents, limiting new enrollments only to citizens below the age of six.
The plea argued that because 144 crore Aadhaar numbers have already been issued—covering approximately 99 per cent of the Indian population—the system must now be tightened to prevent misuse.
The petitioner expressed grave concerns regarding the alleged ease with which “infiltrators” obtain Aadhaar cards by masquerading as Indian citizens. The plea highlighted that the current verification process is “weak and can be easily manipulated,” allowing individuals with simple documents like rent agreements to obtain a 12-digit identification number.
“Foreigners apply for Aadhaar under the ‘foreign’ category. But infiltrators apply for Aadhaar under the ‘Indian citizen’ category and get it easily made,” the petition stated. It further noted that once an Aadhaar is obtained, it serves as a “foundational document” used to procure ration cards, domicile certificates, and voter identity cards, effectively making infiltrators “indistinguishable from Indian citizens.”
Beyond the age restriction, the PIL sought several other directions, including:
- Stringent Guidelines: The framing of rigorous verification protocols for any adolescents or adults still seeking enrollment.
- Clarification of Status: A requirement for Common Service Centres to display boards stating that Aadhaar is strictly a “proof of identity” and not a proof of citizenship, address, or date of birth.
- Legislative Review: The plea questioned whether the Aadhaar Act, 2016, has become “temporally unreasonable” by failing to distinguish effectively between foreigners and citizens, thereby leading to the diversion of public welfare resources.
The bench maintained that the judiciary cannot unilaterally alter the existing legal framework governing the UIDAI.
“As may be seen from the nature of reliefs, most of these require legislative intervention and appropriate amendments in the existing legal framework,” the bench remarked.
Addressing the petitioner directly, the Court suggested that the proper channel for these grievances is the executive and legislative branches. “Point out these issues to the Parliament and the government. They will take care of them,” the bench observed, adding that the Union government would take “appropriate steps” upon receiving such representations.
While the petitioner clarified that the litigation was not “adversarial” but aimed at national security and resource protection, the Court disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Court directed that the PIL be treated as a formal representation to the Union Government and the UIDAI. The matter involved multiple stakeholders, including the Union Ministries of Home, Law and Justice, and Electronics and Information Technology, as well as all States and Union Territories.
