Delhi BLOs asked to seek citizenship proof from voters who submitted only Aadhaar: ‘The Hindu’

Delhi booth-level officers were reportedly asked to collect documents beyond Aadhaar from voters who had submitted no other proof. The stated purpose was to verify their eligibility for the electoral roll and establish that they were not “Bangladeshi” or “Rohingya”.

Some voters had already provided field verification reports and undertakings. These confirmed that they were eligible to vote and had lived at their addresses for years. Even so, voters who submitted only Aadhaar were flagged in the system. One officer said instructions changed repeatedly. Earlier, officers could submit an undertaking when voters lacked prescribed documents.

The reported instructions were disputed. Senior officials denied that such directions had been issued. Electoral registration officers could mark a voter eligible if satisfied with the booth-level officer’s report and undertaking. The notice-disposal deadline was extended to December 15, with the final roll scheduled for December 22.

Aadhaar is a 12-digit identity number issued after collecting identity and biometric details. It is used to identify a person, but it does not by itself establish citizenship. The article reports that Aadhaar-only voters were flagged during Delhi’s roll revision, even though the Supreme Court said the Election Commission cannot decide whether someone is an Indian citizen.

This distinction matters because identity, residence, and citizenship are different questions. An Aadhaar card may help identify someone or support an address claim. It does not answer the separate legal question of nationality. That is why officials reportedly sought additional documents from some voters.

The reported practice remains contested. Some voters had lived at their addresses for years and supplied field reports or undertakings. Senior officials denied that extra-document instructions had been issued. The case shows why treating Aadhaar as citizenship proof could affect electoral-roll decisions.

Delhi’s draft electoral roll contained 97.5 lakh voters. Of these, 33.1 lakh received notices asking them to establish their eligibility. The notices arose during the special intensive revision and covered voters with missing links to an earlier revision or “logical discrepancies” in their forms.

The largest group involved 19.3 lakh voters flagged for logical discrepancies. Another 13.7 lakh had not been linked to electoral rolls from the previous special intensive revision. These figures explain the scale of the verification process and why many booth-level officers were revisiting voters.

By October 27, 31.2 lakh of the 33.1 lakh cases had been cleared for inclusion in the final roll. That represented more than 94% of those who received notices. The disposal deadline was later extended to December 15, and publication of the final electoral roll was scheduled for December 22.

A special intensive revision is a process for checking electoral-roll entries and deciding which names should appear in the updated roll. In Delhi, voters were examined through notices, field verification, documents, and undertakings. The exercise mattered because the final roll determines who is listed as eligible to vote.

The draft roll included 97.5 lakh voters, but 33.1 lakh received notices. Some had not been linked to the previous special intensive revision. Others were flagged for “logical discrepancies” in their enumeration forms. Booth-level officers were asked to revisit voters, although reports described changing instructions about which documents to collect.

The exercise was part of a wider process that began in Bihar in 2025, expanded to 12 states and Union Territories, and entered a third phase in 19. In Delhi, 31.2 lakh cases were cleared by October 27. The final roll was scheduled for December 22.

The Election Commission administers electoral rolls. It can examine documents, field reports, addresses, and undertakings to decide whether an entry meets the rules for inclusion. That administrative role is different from making a final legal determination of citizenship.

The distinction became central in Delhi. Officers reportedly sought extra documents from Aadhaar-only voters and were told to prove they were not “Bangladeshi” or “Rohingya”. Yet the Supreme Court upheld the revision’s legality while clarifying in May that the Election Commission cannot decide whether a person is an Indian citizen.

This means electoral verification cannot simply turn into a citizenship trial. Registration officers could accept a voter when satisfied with a booth-level officer’s field report and undertaking. The article reports that some officials nevertheless sought more documents, while senior officials denied issuing those instructions. The boundary matters because roll decisions can affect voting rights.

If a genuine voter cannot provide the requested documents, officials may fail to clear the person’s case for inclusion. Removal or exclusion from the electoral roll would mean the person is not listed among eligible voters for the election. That can turn a document problem into a direct loss of voting access.

The article describes voters who had lived at their addresses for years and already submitted field verification reports or undertakings. Some had only Aadhaar, while one voter who submitted a passport was reportedly asked for more documents. Officers also said instructions changed repeatedly, creating uncertainty about what would be accepted.

The broader concern is that the revision could eliminate genuine voters from the rolls and shape electoral outcomes. Delhi had cleared 31.2 lakh of 33.1 lakh notice cases by October 27, but the disposal deadline was extended to December 15. The final roll was scheduled for December 22.

Electoral rolls are the official lists used to identify people eligible to vote. Citizenship relates to whether a person belongs to the country under law. Residence links that person to a particular electoral area. The roll brings these elements together by recording an eligible voter at an address.

Delhi’s revision tested these links. Voters were asked to respond to notices, and officers checked field reports, addresses, documents, and undertakings. Some cases involved voters not linked to the previous revision. Others involved “logical discrepancies” in enumeration forms. Aadhaar could identify a person, but it did not by itself settle citizenship.

This connection matters in a democracy because an inaccurate roll can exclude eligible residents from voting. The article reports concerns that genuine voters could be removed and electoral outcomes affected. By October 27, 31.2 lakh of 33.1 lakh Delhi cases had been cleared. The final roll was due on December 22.