[Answered] The Supreme Court’s order on using Aadhaar for voter verification is a significant step. Examine its implications for electoral integrity while balancing the fundamental right to privacy.

Introduction

India’s voter roll accuracy has been under scrutiny, with 65 lakh exclusions reported in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision. The Supreme Court’s directive to include Aadhaar balances electoral integrity with citizens’ democratic entitlements.

Significance of the Supreme Court’s Intervention

1. Directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to include Aadhaar as one of 12 valid voter verification documents.
2. Corrected inconsistencies: If ration cards, PAN, and driving licences (which do not prove citizenship) were admissible, Aadhaar’s exclusion was arbitrary.
3. Restored access for marginalized sections—90% of Bihar’s population holds Aadhaar, compared to only 2% with passports.

Implications for Electoral Integrity

1. Accuracy of Electoral Rolls: Aadhaar helps address anomalies like statistically improbable death rates or forced deletions.
2. Inclusivity: Prevents disenfranchisement of migrant workers, women (often changing addresses post-marriage), and poor households.
3. Efficiency: Aadhaar-enabled verification streamlines identification and reduces duplication, bolstering the credibility of electoral processes.
4. Precedent for Nationwide Roll Updates: Strengthens uniformity and trust in upcoming revisions across states.

Balancing the Right to Privacy

Concerns:

1. Aadhaar is primarily a proof of identity, not citizenship. Linking voter rolls risks conflating residency with nationality.
2. Potential misuse and surveillance, as flagged in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) which upheld privacy as a fundamental right.
3. Risk of data leakage and profiling, especially without robust safeguards.

Safeguards Required:

1. Aadhaar use must be voluntary, with alternative documents accepted.
2. Strong data protection law, as recommended by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee.
3. Firewalls between Aadhaar databases and electoral rolls to prevent unauthorized cross-linking.

Comparative and Institutional Perspectives

1. Global Practice: Many democracies (e.g., Canada, UK) use multiple documents rather than a single centralized ID to prevent exclusion and protect privacy.
2. Indian Context: SC’s order maintains Aadhaar as one among many documents, not the sole basis—striking a middle path.
3. Institutional Responsibility: ECI must ensure house-to-house verification and avoid algorithm-driven mass deletions.

Way Forward

1. Strengthen legal framework by aligning Aadhaar use with the Personal Data Protection Bill (2023 draft).
2. Adopt privacy-by-design architecture for electoral databases.
3. Increase voter awareness on multiple verification options.
4. Periodic audits of electoral rolls by independent bodies to prevent misuse.

Conclusion

Democracy thrives on participation and trust. The Court’s Aadhaar ruling, if coupled with privacy safeguards, can reconcile electoral integrity with individual freedoms.