The Supreme Court asked petitioner Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to approach the competent authorities with his grievances after observing that the reliefs sought on limiting Aadhaar enrolment largely fall within the legislative domain.
Supreme Court Disposes Aadhaar PIL
The Supreme Court today disposed of a public interest litigation seeking restrictions on the issuance of Aadhaar cards.
The PIL sought a direction that authorities should issue Aadhaar cards to citizens only up to the age of six years.
It further prayed that, after this age limit, a person should obtain Aadhaar only from the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Tehsildar.
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the issues raised in the petition fall within the legislative domain.
Therefore, the Court directed that the writ petition, filed as a PIL, should be treated as a representation to the respondent authorities.
Petitioner Sought Guidelines For Adolescents And Adults
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed the petition against the Union, States, Union Territories and the Unique Identification Authority of India.
He sought a direction to UIDAI to issue new Aadhaar cards only to children.
He also sought stricter guidelines for adolescents and adults.
According to the petitioner, such guidelines were necessary to prevent infiltrators from obtaining Aadhaar and allegedly posing as Indian citizens.
Plea Claimed Verification Process Is Weak
The petitioner contended that the existing verification process is weak.
He argued that infiltrators could easily obtain Aadhaar cards.
Thereafter, they could use Aadhaar as a supporting document to secure ration cards, birth certificates, domicile certificates, driving licences and other documents.
According to him, this would harm genuine citizens.
He further submitted that the present system permits Aadhaar issuance on the recommendation of a Village Pradhan or Municipal Councilor.
As a result, he claimed, unentitled infiltrators could obtain Aadhaar and access subsidies and welfare benefits.
Petitioner Referred To Aadhaar Numbers And Fake Documents
During the hearing, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay reiterated his submissions.
He stated that UIDAI had issued 144 crore Aadhaar cards and enrolled 99% of the population.
He also claimed that authorities had recovered 87,000 fake documents from Mumbai alone three days earlier.
Court Says Forgery Can Affect Many Documents
In response, CJI Surya Kant observed that several kinds of documents can face the risk of forgery.
The Chief Justice noted that passports, law degrees, pharma degrees and other documents could also be forged.
The Bench then asked the petitioner to raise his grievances before Parliament or the Government.
Court Records Petitioner’s Main Contentions
In its order, the Bench recorded the petitioner’s main submissions.
The petitioner contended that the Aadhaar framework suffers from statutory deficiencies.
He also argued that the present system adversely affects the rights of citizens.
In addition, the plea asserted that illegal immigration could lead to external aggression and internal disturbance.
It further claimed that the inclusion of non-citizens on electoral rolls compromises the constitutional mandate.
Liberty Granted To Approach Authorities
The Supreme Court held that most of the reliefs sought would require legislative intervention.
Accordingly, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to bring all issues to the notice of the States, Union Territories and other stakeholders.
Case Details
Case Title:
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.
Diary Number:
Diary No. 21141/2026
