Fact check: Amit Malviya misreads SC order on Aadhaar for Bihar voter re-inclusion
Court’s directive clearly allows Aadhaar as standalone document, contrary to BJP IT chief’s claim
New Delhi: A recent statement by BJP's IT department head, Amit Malviya, claiming the Supreme Court did not permit Aadhaar alone as a valid document for voters to re-apply to the electoral roll in Bihar, appears to misinterpret the court's explicit order. A detailed review of the Supreme Court's directive from August 22, 2025, shows that the court listed the Aadhaar card as a distinct and alternative document for submitting requisite forms.
What the BJP claimed?
On Sunday, Malviya accused the Opposition of spreading propaganda regarding the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. He asserted that the Supreme Court "did not say Aadhaar alone can be a valid document to get voting rights" and that it "is only proof of identity and residence, and it does not establish citizenship."
He further claimed that the low number of objections filed, only 84,305 from a list of 65 lakh deleted names, indicated that the removed names were "fake, dead, and Bangladeshi and Rohingya," and that the Opposition's cry of "vote chori" (vote theft) was manufactured.
What does the Supreme Court order actually say?
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued several directives on August 22, 2025, to address the exclusion of approximately 65 lakh people from the draft electoral roll in Bihar. The court's primary focus was to ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to file claims or objections before the September 1, 2025, deadline.
Contrary to Malviya's assertion, the court's order explicitly mentions the Aadhaar card as a valid document. In paragraph 9, the court directs 12 recognized political parties to instruct their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to assist voters. The crucial text reads: "...to issue specific instructions to their respective BLAs to assist the voters in their village/block/constituency/panchayat area as well as relief camps in submitting the requisite forms along with any of the 11 documents mentioned in SIR Notification or Aadhar Card."
The use of the word "or" grammatically separates "any of the 11 documents mentioned in SIR Notification" from "Aadhar Card," presenting them as two distinct options for the voter. This means a voter can submit the requisite form accompanied by either one of the 11 specified documents or by an Aadhaar Card.
Malviya's claim that the apex court did not say "Aadhaar alone can be a valid document" is directly contradicted by the phrasing of the order. The order creates a clear choice for the voter between two categories of documents to submit with their form. While Malviya interprets the low number of objections (84,305) as a sign of a clean electoral roll, the Supreme Court expressed a different view. The court was surprised that out of 1,60,813 BLAs appointed by political parties, only two objections had been filed. This was noted in the context of submissions from some political parties that their BLAs "are not being permitted to submit the objections".
The court's reaction to the situation was not to endorse the draft roll but to issue proactive directives to prevent disenfranchisement. It ordered:
The 12 recognized political parties in Bihar to be impleaded as respondents in the case.
These parties must issue specific instructions to their BLAs to assist the approximately 65 lakh excluded persons.
Individuals can apply online without needing to submit physical forms.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar to formally notify the state presidents of these 12 parties of their impleadment and require them to be present in court with status reports.
The BJP's claim that the Supreme Court's order does not permit the use of an Aadhaar card alone to accompany voter inclusion forms is a misrepresentation of the court's explicit directive. The order's text clearly presents the Aadhaar card as an alternative to a list of 11 other documents for the purpose of submitting claims. Furthermore, the court's surprise at the low number of objections from party agents and its subsequent orders to all major political parties to actively assist excluded voters suggest deep concern about the process, a nuance entirely absent from Malviya's statement.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
