The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a plea raising concerns over the Aadhaar enrolment and verification framework being susceptible to misuse by illegal infiltrators, observing that the issues fall within the domain of legislative and executive policy and require appropriate statutory intervention rather than judicial directions.

The Petitioner submitted that the accusation of the Petitioner is that the verification process for obtaining an Aadhaar Card is extremely weak and susceptible to misuse by illegal infiltrators, who exploit it to masquerade as Indian citizens. It is pointed out that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), headquartered in New Delhi, has issued approximately 154 crore Aadhaar cards, enrolling nearly 99% of the Indian population.

Though a distinction is maintained between foreigners and nationals for the purpose of enrolment, it is alleged that the official memorandums dated 22 December 2023 and 24 April 2024, relating to authentication, are not being properly followed. On the contrary, recommendations of village Pradhan or municipal authorities are being accepted without adequate verification of nationality.

The petitioner further contends that there exists a statutory vacuum due to insufficient legislative measures addressing illegal infiltration within the Aadhaar framework. It is also submitted that the rights of citizens are adversely impacted despite constitutional guarantees, that illegal immigration may lead to external aggression as well as internal disturbances, and that inclusion of non-citizens in electoral rolls compromises the constitutional mandate under Articles 326 and 327 of the Constitution.

Having heard the petitioner appearing in person, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that most of the issues raised require legislative intervention and appropriate amendments to the existing legal framework. In the absence of such measures, judicial intervention would not be appropriate unless exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of such powers.

The Court further observed that the appropriate course would be to bring these issues to the notice of the concerned state authorities and stakeholders for consideration at the policy level.

“Having heard the petitioner appearing in person, we are of the view that most of the issues raised require legislative intervention and appropriate amendments to the existing legal framework. In the absence of such measures, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, unless there exist strong and compelling circumstances warranting such interference. The appropriate course would be to bring these issues to the notice of the concerned State authorities and other stakeholders for consideration at the policy level.”

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition was disposed of, and the writ petition was treated as a representation before the appropriate authorities. Such representation shall be considered in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner filing the requisite fee within three days.