Massive Legal Win for Kebaowek First Nation And Allies Against Proposed
Nuclear Waste Dump in Canada
-
Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Victory for Kebaowek First Nation
and Allies in “Species at Risk” Case Against Chalk River Nuclear Waste
Project Kebaow...
Featured Articles
Latest Post
10:14 AM
Deleterious ramifications of judgement on voters/citizens ridden with linguistic blunders: India's First Mass Surveillance, Mass Spying Unending Census Case-Part 18
Written By mediavigil on Thursday, June 11, 2026 | 10:14 AM
Isn’t the judgement per incuriam because it ignores judgments by Constitution Bench?
Decoding relationship between Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, Aadhaar Act, 2016, Representation of the People Act, 1950, Citizenship Act, 1955
वागर्थाविव संपृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये।
(For the correct grasping of words and their sense)
जगतः पितरौ वन्दे पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ॥
(I bow to Parvati and Shiva who are the parents of the universe and are connected together like words and their meaning.)
-Verse 1.1, Mahkavi Kalidasa in Raghuvamsham
“Names were made in order to denote actualities, on the one hand so as to make evident the distinctions between superior and inferior [in society], and on the other hand to distinguish similarities and differences. Names are given to things. When things are alike, they are named alike; when different, they are named differently. The one who knows that different actualities have different names, and who therefore never refers to different actualities otherwise than by different names, will not experience any confusion. Likewise he who refers to the same actualities should never use any other but the same names.”
-Hsiin Tzu cited in A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Fung Yu-lan 1948
“The practical choice of first-rate nations is between the Presidential Government and the Parliamentary; no State can be first-rate which has not a Government by discussion, and those are the only two existing species of that Government….”
-Waltek Bagehot in his Introduction to the second edition of The English Constitution, p. lxxiv, 1872
Is Union of India, a first-rate State? Does it have a Government by discussion? Has there been any discussion on how India’s 224 billionaires who have crossed the $1 trillion-mark in terms of cumulative net worth coerced their fellow Indians to enrol for the Aadhaar Number Online Database system? Has the government coerced these 224 billionaires to enrol for Aadhhar Number, the way it coerced all the present future legislators, judges, editors, armed forces and intelligence officials? Is it not the case that their donations to the political parties under Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 enacted with bipartisan support is behind the creation of this Online Database which has admittedly been transferred to foreign entities in the supreme interest of all present and future Indians? Are NGOs who have begun supporting such transfer of demographic data, biometric data, transaction data and meta data through their support for illegitimate Aadhaar Number Online Database supported by some of these billionaires in myriad disguises? Shouldn’t there be discussion about these issues?
Judgments and laws which are ridden with linguistic blunders have deleterious implications for “thinking on thinking” because before human beings think they must first think about their thinking. The faculty with which they think about thinking is the very same faculty with which they think. The faculty with which they think is the faculty which decodes meaning from words. The art of decoding meaning about meaning and thinking about thinking is essential for one’s sense of reality and for contesting “irreality” being created at the instance of non-State actors through manufactured consent. The fact remains consent in any relationship is never eternal, it can be withdrawn if it does not serve the interest of consent givers. Informed discussions bring to light the facts about consent which was extracted by deception.
In his speech at Poona District Law Library on December 22, 1952, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, country’s first union law minister of India referred to “Government by discussion”. In the aftermath of declaration of results of the election to the 18th Bihar legislative assembly on November 14, 2025 and formation of the State government on November 20, 2025, in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (2026), Chief Justice Surya Kant authored a 124-page long judgement dated May 27, 026 on behalf of Supreme Court's Division Bench which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The ADR case was heard along with 18 other writ petitions but the judgement does not name them. These petitioners were:Manoj Kumar Jha, Mujahid Alam, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, People's Union For Civil Liberties, Yogendra Singh Yadav, Mahua Moitra, K.C.Venugopal, Rajeev Ranjan, Arshad Ajmal, Akhtarul Iman, Zarif Hosain, Mohammad Adeeb, Sudhakar Singh, Thol Thirumavalavan, National Federation for Indian Women, P.K. Kunhalikyutty, Rajesh Ranjan@Pappu Yadav and Vaibhav Mishra. The discussion which began before the judgement has not ended with the the judgement.
The judgement was authored by the 53rd Chief Justice India. It refers to Election Commission of India on 300 occasions, citizens on 94 occasions, the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 on 45 occasions, electoral rolls on 49 occasions, Aadhaar Number as “Aadhaar card” on 14 occasions besides Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
Although the provisions of Aadhaar Act are confined to “residents” who have “resided in India for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of application for enrolment” for unique identity (UID) numbers branded as Aadhaar, the judgement does not mention the term “resident” even once. Does it not sound strange? Notably, Justice A.K. Sikri who authored the majority judgement dated September 2018 in the Aadhaar Act case, committed the blunder of using the term “citizen” and “resident’ interchangeably. The fact remains, the term “citizens” and “residents” have different meaning and cannot be substituted for each other by any stretch of judicial imagination. It is not clear from Chief Justice Suryakant’s judgement whether he agrees with imprecise and improper use of such terms.
It is crystal clear that the “one who knows that different actualities have different names, and who therefore never refers to different actualities otherwise than by different names”, will not create any confusion. One who refers to the same actualities should never use any other but the same names. One who refers to the same actuality of a “number” should never use any other name like “card” but must use the same name. One who uses the term “a citizen” should never use “a resident’ to refer to the same actuality.
The judgement failed to take life out of the discussion. It has offered all the words used in the judgement to be adjudicated upon by we, the people of India because whenever people have become inattentive in times of despotism, Courts are inclined to extinguish life through their infamous judgments like they did in the case of Dred Scott vs. John Sandford (1857), Buck vs. Bell (1927), ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976) and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2018), the Aadhaar Number Online Database related case. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court had stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the USA. Therefore, they could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. It also stated that US legislature had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. In 1927, U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization laws for individuals deemed "genetically unfit". The 8-1 decision endorsed the eugenics movement in the USA. In 1976, the Supreme Court of India in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, by majority, it held that the Presidential Proclamation had validly suspended the remedy of habeas corpus under the Constitution. It acted as a complete bar to exercising the fundamental right to life and liberty. suspended the right of all individuals to move the Courts for legal remedy, if case they were detained. These judgments have been overturned indicating the short life span of such decisions. In 2017, the Supreme Court’s 9-Judge Bench by unanimity in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) overruled its 1976 judgment, wherein, the Court observed:"In IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu, this Court took the view that ADM Jabalpur has been impliedly overruled by various subsequent decisions. We now expressly do so.” In his concurring opinion as part of the Constitution Judge Bench, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed: “I fully agree with the view expressly overruling the ADM Jabalpur case which was an aberration in the constitutional jurisprudence of our country and the desirability of burying the majority opinion ten fathoms deep, with no chance of resurrection.”
But on September 26, 2018, it became apparent that the Court’s 5-Judge Constitution Bench by majority of 4:1, re-adopted its questionable decision in ADM Jabalpur case by making fundamental right of Indians condition precedent on their enrolment for Aadhaar Number. The judgment by majority legalized coercion of citizens who happen to be residents of India to access subsidies by sacrificing their private sensitive data by enrolling for the Aadhaar number database although no government has the constitutional power to make the right to have rights a condition precedent. By declaring controversial Aadhaar Bill to be a Money Bill through its judgment authored by Justice A. K. Sikri on behalf of himself, the 45th Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar along with a separate but concurring opinion by Justice Ashok Bhushan. In Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank (2019), a 5-Judge Constitution Bench was constrained by non-existence of reasoning by Justice Sikri in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2018) on Article 110(1) of the Constitution and referred to a 7-Judge Constitution Bench by the 46th Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi headed bench. Although a decision on the constitutionality of Aadhaar Act is awaited, six chief justices have come and gone, and six months of the 53rd Chief Justice has passed, the decision by 7-Judge Bench is nowhere in sight. Meanwhile, Justice Khanwilkar has been appointed the Chairperson of Lokpal of India and Justice Bhshan has been made the chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.Justice Sikri has been made Honorary Professor at Nation Law University, Delhi. Notably, Justice Misra was given SKOCH Challenger Award for Exemplary Service to Law & Liberty on May 14, 2022.
Coincidentally, prior to that Sameer Kochhar, the Chairman of Skoch Group had disclosed on February 11, 2017 as per Newslaundry that“Apparently, when you use an Aadhaar enabled front-end application, your biometric is scanned and stored on the device along with your Aadhaar number”but now its url http://inclusion.skoch.in/story/842/is-a-deep-state-at-work-to-steal-digital-india-1142.html is no more functional. It was reported by Indian Express that Delhi Police Crime Branch had lodged a FIR against Kochar. Subsequently, The Times of India reported on February 24, 2017 that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), under Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had lodged a criminal case and a probe was ordered against 3 firms, namely, Axis Bank Limited, Mumbai based Suvidhaa Infoserv and Bangalore based eMudhra for illegal use of biometric data collected at the time of enrolment for aadhaar Number. Its outcome is not known. Notably, Neelkanth Mishra, Chairperson (Part-time) is also the Chief Economist at Axis Bank and Head of Global Research at Axis Capital as per UIDAI’s website.
Nandan Nilekani, the first chairperson, UIDAI was given Lifetime Achievement by SKOCH Group on March 25, 2013 which was presented by Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, the parent organisation of UIDAI and, Dr C Rangarajan, Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Later, it was reported on October 3, 2013 that Dr. Shefali Dash, Deputy Director General, National Informatics Centre (NIC) and others were conferred the ‘Platinum Award’ and ‘Order of Merit’ awards at the Skoch Digital Inclusion Awards 2013 by Nilekani, and Kochhar at the Le Meridien Hotel, New Delhi. In 2014, Skoch Group published a book entitled Growth and Governance: Essays in honour of Nilekani. As early as March 2010, Nilekani spoke at the summit in New Delhi organised by the Skoch Foundation that from the slogan of ‘roti, kapda, makaan’in the 1960s and 1970s, India grew to the slogan of ‘bijli, sadak, pani’and in the next ten years, it would be bank account, mobile number and UID. In November 2010, 24th Skoch Summit was co-organised by UIDAI. But on October 28, 2017, Kochar posted a editorial of Mid Day entitled “Can't hold Aadhaar gun to people's heads”on Facebook but its url https://www.facebook.com/100064312224469/posts/1721832007828166/ is no more functional.
After the award from Skoch Group, UIDAI’s first chairperson was given ID Limelight Award at ID WORLD Congress in Italy on 16 November 16, 2010. The Congress was co-sponsored by Safran Morpho which got contract from UIDAI. On February 2, 2011 USA's L1 Identities Solution company became Safran (French) on July 26, 2011 and it re-incarnated as Idemia in 2017.
The contract agreements accessed under RTI Act have revealed that personal sensitive data of Indians has reached the hands of transnational by private enterprises like Accenture, Safran Group and Enst & Young. It has come to light that companies like 23andMe, a privately held personal genomics and biotechnology company based in California and Ancestry.com, a US online genealogy company, collect and store DNA data, and that such data can be sold or accessed by third parties.
Incestuous relation between Election Commission of India, UIDAI, Registrar General of India for National Population Register (NPR) and Census
The Election Commission of India on its website had provided answer to a question about the “system of numbering EVMs”, wherein it had revealed that “Each Control Unit has a unique ID Number (UID).” It seems now the url http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/evm.aspx of the answer has been disabled. The proponents of world's biggest citizen identification scheme aim to converge electoral photo identity card (EPIC) numbers of electoral database, the UID/Aadhaar number database called “Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR).
A strange situation has emerged where voters and citizens chose a government that is supposed to represent them but their government is undertaking the task of biometrically authenticating whether or not those it represents are indeed those who they claim to be.
In a letter dated June 7, 2011, the Director General and Mission Director of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) wrote to Chief Election Commissioner saying, “The Election Commission of India (ECI) may also like to leverage Aadhaar infrastructure in cleaning/ updating their existing electoral data base. Aadhaar numbers issued by the UIDAI can also be included in the list of valid proof of identity (POI) and proof of address (POA) documents of the Election Commission during the polls for identity verification.” The file notings by ECI on the UIDAI’s letter reads: “How can Aadhaar number used as proof of address”. The reply from ECI dated June 17, 2011 on the letter from UIDAI sought following information before taking any further action:
• Whether UIDAI has the provision to update the address in the database, whenever there is a change in address, to use Aadhaar number as proof of address?
• Whether any process has been defined to use Aadhaar numbers on electoral roll database?
• Whether UIDAI can include EPIC numbers in Aadhaar database?
Responding to these question, in its letter dated July 11, 2011 UIDAI wrote, “Aadhaar has the provision to update the demographic or biometric information of the resident in CIDR from time to time to ensure that the CIDR data is up-to date and accurate all the time. The tool is currently under testing and should be widely available shortly.” The CIDR stands for Central Identities Data Repository of the Aadhaar numbers. Has the “tool” promised July 2011 available now? This reply is far from the truth.
It further wrote, Aadhaar numbers can be seeded into EPIC and electoral roll databases to clean those databases and also to bring standardisation and uniformity in the Election Commission’s databases across the country. UIDAI does provide necessary technical and financial support under its information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure scheme for integration of Aadhaar number with database of concerned Ministries/ Departments to make them UID compliant. However, the process and schemes to use Aadhaar numbers for their applications are to be defined by the concerned Departments themselves.”
The notification of January 28, 2009 that set up UIDAI, provides the terms of reference (TOR) for its work. There is no reference to the collation of UID number database with electoral database in the TOR. But the TOR does refer to “collation and correlation with UID and its partner databases.” If this reference to ‘partner database’ included electoral database, the UID/ Aadhaar enrolment form never revealed it and took Indian residents for a ride. UIDAI argued, “Aadhaar database is restricted to the name, date of birth, gender, address, facial image, ten fingerprints and iris of the resident. The data fields are based on the recommendation of the Demographic and Data field Verification Committee headed by N Vittal, former chief vigilance commissioner (CVC). Since Aadhaar database contains absolute minimum information of a resident necessary to establish identity, it is not possible to include EPIC numbers in the Aadhaar database. However, the ECI should seed Aadhaar numbers in the electoral database as clarified above.”
Notably, UIDAI was constituted in pursuance of the fourth meeting of the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) headed by the then External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherji had held on November 4, 2008. Shivraj Patil, the then union home minister and A Raja, the then minister for IT and Communications, HR Bhardwaj, the then law minister and Mani Shankar Aiyar, the then panchayati raj minister, were members of the EGoM wherein Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of Planning Commission was an invitee. Isn’t this the reason why Indian National Congress is wary of promising repealing Aadhaar Act and Aadhaar Number Online Database.
Prior to this KM Chandrasekhar, cabinet secretary, Government of India (GoI) wrote a letter dated April 25, 2011 addressed to VK Bhasin, secretary, legislative department stating, “Aadhaar can be treated as a valid Proof of Identity (PoI) and Proof of Address (PoA).”
The Election Commission in its letter dated March 4, 2013 to UIDAI on the subject of “Seeding of Aadhaar number in Electoral Database” wrote that “Commission feels that it would be better that EPIC no. is collected at the time of enrollment for Aadhaar and put in the Aadhaar database…ECI has already issued instructions that Aadhaar cards can be used as alternative identity documents at polling station…It may be mentioned here that Ministry of Home Affairs has also agreed to print EPIC no. on smart card as issued by Registrar General of India…Under the circumstances, it is once again requested that EPIC no. may be made mandatory for enrollment in Aadhaar.” In its letter dated October 29, 2012, the ECI had argued that “including EPIC no. as mandatory field in UIDAI database would enable better integration between UIDAI database and electoral database, which will make Aadhaar numbers more useful.”
This eager endorsement of illegitimate Aadhaar database and its inexplicable swiftness to merge EPIC Number and electoral database with a database whose constitutionality is pending before the 7-Judge Constitution Bench merits public scrutiny.
In a letter dated April 16, 2012, R.K. Singh, the then secretary, ministry of home affairs (MHA) wrote to Dr S.Y. Quraishi, the then Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), with reference to latter’s letter dated April 4, 2012 “regarding inclusion of Electoral Photo Identity Card -EPIC number in the Aadhaar database.”
The secretary, MHA wrote, “The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India is in the process of creating the National Population Register (NPR) in the country. The NPR, when completed will be a register of all usual residents of the country, which would have the Aadhaar number besides the demographic and biometric data. The Government is also considering a proposal to issue Resident Identity (smart) Cards to all usual residents above the age of 18 years. The scheme is already making good progress and is likely to be completed in the next two years.”
The combination of the office of Census Commissioner and RGI creates a legal conflict of interest that is required to be examined because Census Act requires that data of residents of India has to be kept confidential. But RGI created under Citizenship Act admittedly puts the data in public domain. Besides this MHA has also feigned ignorance about the illegality of biometric data collection under NPR, a fact pointed out by BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi. The then secretary of MHA is now fighting parliamentary election on BJP’s ticket.
At that time, the secretary, MHA also wrote, “As a part of the process of creating the NPR, the EPIC number is also being collected. This would enable mapping of the Aadhaar number to the EPIC number right from the beginning…Once the mapping is completed, there could be a lot of synergy between the EPIC and NPR databases.” He pointed out that “while the registration under the NPR is mandatory under the provisions of the Citizenship Act 1955, the production of EPIC Card during the NPR enrolment and capturing the EPIC number is being done on a voluntary basis from the residents. There are, therefore, gaps in the collection of the numbers. The gap can easily be bridged as the Authorities notified for the creation of the NPR are the same as those notified under the Electoral Law and if necessary instructions are issued by the Election Commission, they could easily ensure a complete coverage.”
The Election Commission is yet to demonstrate that it has comprehended the pernicious consequences of such convergence. There is nothing in public domain to suggest that implications of such convergence have been examined.
The then secretary, MHA informed the CEC that there is mutual agreement between the MHA’s RGI and ECI that “there is a considerable potential to synchronise the two databases and set up a unified platform for future updating of the same and sought CEC’s advice to take it forward. Does the Election Commission realize that synchronization of the two databases is happening as per the design of Wipro’s document and is beyond the mandate given to UIDAI and RGI?
It is noteworthy that one of the earliest documents that refer UIDAI is a 14-page long document titled ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd for the Planning Commission envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s Aadhaar would have with the electoral database. The use of electoral database mentioned in Wipro’s document remains on the agenda of the proponents of Aadhaar.
The reason for reluctance of Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to share all the file documents and correspondence relating to Nilekani right up to his joining Indian National Congress without resigning from the post of Chairperson, UIDAI and his resignation remains enveloped in a miasma. The attempt to undertake convergence of all the sensitive databases of Indians and Nilekani’s confidence in the irreversibility of these efforts threw open political challenge to all the opposition parties and the informed citizens.
Hasn’t all the data collected by Census, UIDAI, RGI and ECI been transmitted to foreign countries through companies L1 Identity Solutions, Accenture and Mongo DB?
In the 41 page long Wikileaked document titled ‘Creating a unique identity number for every resident in India’ that declared itself to be a ‘Confidential- property of UIDAI’ states, “The Unique ID or UID will be a numeric that is unique across all 1.2 billion residents in India. The UID number will not contain intelligence. In older identity systems, it was customary to load the ID number with information related to the date of birth, as well as the location of the person. However, this makes the number susceptible to fraud and theft, and migration of the resident quickly makes location details out of date. The UID will be a random number.” While the Election Commission, cabinet secretary, home secretary and UIDAI have accepted UID/Aadhaar as “proof of address”, this Wikileaked document reveals that making it a proof of location was not part of its conceptual design. It is a puzzle as how agencies after agencies started accepting biometric Aadhaar as proof of address?
The convergence of Voter ID Number with UID/Aadhaar Number automatically creates a file of the Indian residents. The confidential document reveals that from day one that the union government wanted to create a file on each of “1.2 billion residents”, the division of work between MHA’s NPR and UIDAI was merely an attention diversion tactics to outwit political scrutiny. The merger of the electoral database with UID/number debunks UIDAI’s claim that UID number “will not contain intelligence” and “the location of the person.”
In a sort of “coup against ‘electoral democracy’”, the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 amended the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to link voter ID number issued by the Election Commission of India, constitutional body with Aadhaar number issued by the UIDAI, which is a government agency created by Aadhaar Act on a “voluntary basis”. The Election Commission of India by its instruction dated July 4, 2022, launched the programme to collect the Aadhaar number of existing and prospective electors on a voluntary basis from August 1, 2022 in all States and Union territories. Although it is voluntary to link Aadhaar with Voter ID and consent is obtained from the elector for Aadhaar authentication in Form 6B. There is no provision for withdrawing the consent. Like although Aadhaar number and Pakistan’s biometric ID were packaged as “voluntary”, through massive advertisement blitzkrieg aadhaar ha been inserted almost everywhere, linking of Aadhaar number database the voter ID number database is being coerced although it dilutes the sanctity of the electoral database.
If these provisions of the contract agreements with foreign entities and the are read with Section 23 (2) (g) of Aadhaar Act, it becomes clear that powers and functions of the UIDAI includes the power of “omitting and deactivating of an Aadhaar number and information relating thereto in such manner as may be specified by regulations” through subordinate legislation as and when they deem it appropriate. It means that Aadhaar Act is worse than the overruled verdict in ADM Jabalpur case. As per Section 47 (1) of the Aadhaar Act, “no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save on a complaint made by the Authority or any officer or person authorised by it.” This takes away the right of the “residents” and citizens to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Given the fact that Indians’ biological information is being colonised by foreign entities, its ramifications include emergence of biometric borders restricting mobility of citizens. Human body in India came under assault as a result of forced sterilization of thousands of men under the infamous family planning initiative of Sanjay Gandhi during Internal Emergency. It is once again under attack through indiscriminate biometric profiling at the behest of the donors of the political parties. It is apparent that the Aadhaar number database project, is aimed at creating an unlimited government, not limited by Constitution.
The utter lack of sense of beauty and justice among the authors of these infamous judgments, has made them a text book lesson on how not to write judgments.
Decoding Aadhaar’s presence in judgement by 53rd Chief Justice
The judgement by 53rd Chief Justice makes reference to Aadhaar Act in a somewhat flippant manner without referring to the unanimous judgments by 9-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dated August 24, 2017, the 4:1 majority judgement dated September 26, 2018 by 5-Judge Constitution Bench, the unanimous judgments dated November 13, 2019 by 5-Judge Constitution Bench which has referred the matter of the legitimacy of Aadhaar Act to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to decide its constitutionality. Cannot the judgement authored by the 53rd Chief Justice be deemed per incuriam because it chooses to ignore binding legal precedent established in judgments by Constitution Bench? The inattention towards the judgments in the case of humankind ’s biggest database appears jurisprudentially indefensible.
The judgement by the Supreme Court’s Division Bench has revealed that Yogendra Yadav, one of 18 petitioners and Prashant Bhushan, the counsel of the ADR missed the opportunity to educate the Court about the difference between Aadhaar “Number” and an unsigned “card”. Do they really wish to the present and future generation of Indians to believe that “card” means “number” and “number” means “card” like Justice A.K Sikri? If it is indeed the case, then they must show a dictionary which supports their questionable assumption. Are they agree with Lewis Carroll’s character Humpty Dumpty in the book Through the Looking-Glass, where he famously says, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Will they also choose meaning for the words they use?
The judgement by the Division Bench seems imprisoned in the discredited positivist, utilitarian and analytical school of jurisprudence.
It is apparent that ADR forgot its own Statement of Concern against the biometric 12-digit unique identity (UID) numbers advertised under the brand name Aadhaar which was co-signed by Prof. Trilochan Sastry, Chairman-Trustee, ADR and Prof. Jagdish Chhokar , co-founder, ADR along with 15 others issued at a press conference at Press Club of India on released on September 28, 2010. How is that in 2010 ADR knew that UID/Aadhaar is a number but in its writ petition filed in 2025 in the Supreme Court it started referring to it as “card”? How is that it demanded scrapping of UID/Aadhaar number project in 2010 but has started supporting it in its petition filed in 2025? Is it not inexplicable and intriguing? Who misled ADR and subsequently the Court?
It is noteworthy that Justice Sikri also committed the blunder of using the term “Aadhaar card” and “Aadhaar number” interchangeably. It is clear from Chief Justice’s judgement that wittingly or unwittingly, he too has done the same without rectifying the previous error. Such linguistic blunders create a compelling need for law students, the future advocates, judges, policy makers and activists to study the theory of meaning. The subjects of linguistics and semantics have studied meaning of “meaning” as to what is the relation subsisting between thoughts, words or sentences. For instance, the term for ‘thing ’ in ancient Indian philosophy is padartha, which literally states that the meaning of a word (shabda), that which a word means (artha).” In his Vakyapadiyam, Bhartrihari, the 5th century Indian philosopher of language propounded the theory of inseparability of word and meaning. When one hears a word, its meaning automatically appears in the minds. According to his Sphota theory there is an unbroken meaning produced by the signifier (word) and the object (meaning) which he termed as sphota, the explosion of meaning. Likewise, the Sanskrit term namarupa refers to world of things, which means objects can be understood by means of their names or their visible shapes, and that the name and the shape constitute the essence (tatva) of a thing. Even a preliminary study of the Indian theory of meaning will be enough to drive home the significance of the referent and the referred and the signifier and the signified. The name (nama) “number” cannot refer to “card” shape (rupa) and “card” (rupa) cannot signify “number” (naam).
Comments on ten out of 21 references made about Aadhaar in the judgement
As a consequence of persuasion by Yadav and ADR, the judgement reads: “The Court further observed that, in the interest of justice and to obviate any unwarranted exclusion of eligible voters, the Commission should, in addition to the eleven documents already prescribed, also consider accepting (a) Aadhaar Card; (b) Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC); and (c) Ration Card, as valid proof” at page no. 11 while referring to its order dated July 10, 2025. It added: “It was further directed that persons aggrieved by their exclusion could submit claims by furnishing the same along with a copy of their Aadhaar Card” at page no. 12 by its order dated August 14, 2025. The judgement records that “.On 22.08.2025, this Court directed that twelve political parties, comprising six nationally recognised and six state recognised parties, be impleaded as respondents in the present proceedings through their respective Presidents. It was further directed that the aforesaid twelve political parties, acting through their respective Presidents of the Bihar State, shall issue specific instructions to their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to assist voters in their village, block, constituency, panchayat area, as well as in relief camps, in submitting the requisite forms along with any of the eleven documents specified in the SIR Notification or with their Aadhaar Card. ”
Referring to its order dated September 8, 2025, wherein, the issue of the legal acceptability of the Aadhaar Card as a supporting document in the SIR process hat was considered, the Chief Justice recorded in his judgement that “an Aadhaar Card does not constitute proof of citizenship and, therefore, cannot be relied upon for that purpose” although he drew on the provision sunder Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950. The provision reads: “The electoral registration officer may for the purpose of establishing the identity of any person require that such person may furnish the Aadhaar number given by the Unique Identification Authority of India as per the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016”. He referred to it to point out that its provisions “expressly includes Aadhaar among the documents which may be produced for the limited purpose of establishing the identity of a person.” It escaped the attention of the Chief Justice that both the Aadhaar Act and the Representation of the People (RP) Act refer to Aadhaar Number, not to Aadhaar Card. The judgement by the Chief Justice reads: “Keeping this in view, the Commission was directed to treat Aadhaar Card as the 12th document of identity for consideration for the purposes of inclusion or exclusion from the revised electoral roll of the State of Bihar. It was, however, made explicit that the authorities would have the power to verify the authenticity and genuineness of an Aadhaar Card by calling for further material where necessary.”
This direction of the Chief Justice disregards the truth that there is no law in India which makes any provision for something called “Aadhaar Card”. Section 2 (a). of the Aadhaar Act reads: “Aadhaar number” means an identification number issued to an individual under sub-section (3) of section 3” and Section 3(3) reads: “On receipt of the demographic information and biometric information under sub-section (1), the Authority shall, after verifying the information, in such manner as may be specified by regulations, issue an Aadhaar number to such individual.” Nowhere in law there is any reference to Aadhaar card, all the relevant provisions without any exception refer to Aadhaar Number, which is issued by Unique Identification Authority of India, which is responsible for the processes of enrolment and authentication under Section 11 (1) of the Aadhaar Act. There is a logcal compulsion for the Chief Justice to get his judgement rectified to make it compliant with the legislative intent and the Election Commission and all the government entities ought to be directed to refrain for making a grave category mistake. The colossal failure making a distinction between a “number” and a “card” is is a linguistic sin which is causing cognitive dissonance among the citizens in general and among all the legislators, judges, journalists, political parties, officials and children.
Comments on remaining eleven references made about Aadhaar
At page 82-83, the judgement reads: “….insofar as the documentation regime was concerned, the initial grievance of the Petitioner(s) centred around the exclusion of widely held Aadhaar Cards. This concern was directly addressed by this Court while directing the inclusion of the Aadhaar Card with a clarification regarding the statutory status of Aadhaar as a valid document for establishing identity. This intervention expanded the evidentiary avenues available to electors.”
The reference to “documentation regime” must be read along with Kamal Sadiq’s book Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries (2011) published by Oxford University Press. He has pointed out that although citizenship is ‘expressed through documents’ but the process of creating the document (for Right to Identity) is not the consistent monopoly of the state. The 547-page long unanimous judgement dated August 24, 2017 by 9-Judge Constitution Bench in Aadhaar case refers to the term “citizen” on 142 occasions. Sadiq’s reference to the phenomenon of ‘documentary citizenship’ is quite relevant in the context of biometric documentation of Indians. It seems that under the influence of a cartel of ID cards, efforts are on to establish that it is documents that create citizens, not the States. The fact is that the rights of natural citizens go beyond proof of documentation. Sadiq writes, ‘The bounded nature of citizenship, where the nation-state was a container for all rights, has eroded because of its dependence on documents. Citizenship is no longer a secure political realm…documentary citizenship presents a serious problem for our understanding of the composition of states’. He underlines that the ability of documentary citizens to partake in the political affairs of a country – vote, run for public office, while retaining their previous sense of nationality and belonging. He makes a case that documentary citizenship undermines state sovereignty. It is increasing becoming apparent that it undermines voters who are left at the mercy of State actors and non-State actors to prove their existence and identity as voters.
At page 103-104, the judgement by the 53rd Chief Justice recorded the submissions of the petitioners: “…..Particular exception was taken to the exclusion of commonly held documents such as Aadhaar Card, EPIC and Ration cards, which, according to the Petitioner(s), constitute the most accessible forms of identification for a large segment of the population. The Petitioners further emphasised that the prescribed documentation regime, by insisting upon a closed set of documents, disproportionately burdens vulnerable and marginalised communities, who may not possess the specified documents, thereby rendering the process exclusionary in effect” The Election Commission pointed out, “Insofar as the Aadhaar Card is concerned, reliance was placed on Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, which does not recognise it as proof of citizenship or domicile, thereby rendering it unsuitable for the purpose of electoral verification.”
Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act reads: “Aadhaar number not evidence of citizenship or domicile, etc.-The Aadhaar number or the authentication thereof shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile in respect of an Aadhaar number holder.” Contrary to the legislative intent, the judgment is insisting on using the term “Aadhaar Card” for Aadhaar Number although in Section 9 itself the Aadhaar Act refers to “Aadhaar Number” on three occasions. It is apparent that the blunder by Justice Sikri is casting a long shadow.
At page 108-109, the judgement reads: “156. Insofar as the exclusion of Aadhaar is concerned, the justification advanced by the Commission needs to be examined in light of the Aadhar Act. The statutory framework governing the Aadhaar Card does not treat it as proof of citizenship or domicile. In an exercise where the Commission is required to be satisfied as to eligibility in terms of the statute, reliance upon a document that does not, by design, attest to such eligibility would be of limited utility. 157. It is, however, pertinent to note that while an Aadhaar Card may not constitute proof of citizenship or domicile, Section 23(4) of the RP Act expressly contemplates its use for the limited purpose of establishing the identity of an individual. In recognition of this statutory position, this Court, vide Order dated 08.09.2025, directed the Commission to treat the Aadhaar Card as an additional 12th document of identity for consideration in the process of inclusion or exclusion from the revised electoral roll in the State of Bihar. It was, however, made equally clear that such recognition does not elevate Aadhaar to conclusive proof, and that the authorities would remain empowered to verify its authenticity and genuineness, including by calling for such further material as may be necessary in a given case.”
In light of the Aadhar Act, there was/ is a compelling reason for the 53rd Chief Justice tp pay heed to legislative intent explicitly stated in Section 9. If legislature makes it eminently clear that “Aadhaar number or the authentication thereof shall not” confer any right or proof of citizenship or domicile in respect of an Aadhaar number holder, how can non-document like Aadhaar Number be turned into the 12th document by referring to it as “Aadhaar card?
You may also want to read…
India's First Mass Surveillance, Mass Spying and Unending Census Case
India's First Mass Surveillance, Mass Spying and Unending Census Case Part -2
India's First Mass Surveillance, Mass Spying and Unending Census Case-Part 3
Dr Gopal Krishna
(The author is a practicing advocate and a researcher of philosophy, mass communication and law. His current work is focused on the philosophy of digital totalitarianism and the monetisation of nature. He has appeared before the Supreme Court's Committees, Parliamentary Committees of Europe, Germany and India and UN agencies on the subject of national and international legislations on UID/Aadhaar/NPR, DNA profiling through criminal identification procedures, nuclear damage, consumers, land acquisition, biological diversity, finance, hazardous waste trade, water cycle and corporate crimes since 2001. He is an ex-Fellow, International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC)-University of Potsdam, Germany. He is a member of Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (MCRG). He is also the editor of www.toxicswatch.org.)