"False, Misleading": DMK Denies Collecting Aadhaar For Membership Drive
A day after the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court restrained the ruling DMK from collecting Aadhaar details and OTPs from the public during its membership drive, the party has strongly denied the allegations in court, calling them "false and misleading."
Appearing before the bench on Tuesday, the DMK submitted that it does not collect Aadhaar numbers or any other personal documents for its membership campaign. The party clarified that the OTP system is used solely to record voluntary consent from individuals seeking to enrol, and not for any Aadhaar-based authentication.
The submission comes in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an AIADMK advocate, who alleged that the DMK's ambitious membership drive - aimed at enrolling at least 30% of the state's voters ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections - was in violation of the Aadhaar Act and individual privacy rights.
The petitioner had accused the DMK of coercing citizens, especially women, into sharing Aadhaar numbers, ration cards, voter IDs, and bank passbook details. It was also claimed that mobile numbers were being collected, followed by an OTP-based verification allegedly linked to Aadhaar, creating a politically motivated voter database.
However, the DMK, in its counter, told the court, "No Aadhaar-based OTPs are being sought."
"Members are being enrolled purely on the basis of the Electoral Roll released by the Election Commission. No documents like Aadhaar, ration card, or passbook are being collected. The PIL is based on misinformation spread by AIADMK," it said.
Though the court did not stop the party's enrolment drive, DMK's counsel informed that the enrolment drive has been paused in light of the court's interim order and urged the bench to treat the case as an urgent matter, allowing the party to clarify its position in fairness.
The court has now directed the DMK to file a formal impleading petition, giving it an opportunity to be heard officially in the matter. Yesterday, one of the judges also noted that during Tuesday's proceedings, natural justice required the respondents (including DMK) to be given a chance to respond before any adverse findings are recorded.
The high court had on Monday restrained the DMK from collecting Aadhaar and OTP details based on the PIL's claims. The order had also tagged the Election Commission and UIDAI for their response, given the implications for voter data protection and political data usage.
The case is expected to be taken up later this week, with the court likely to hear detailed arguments from all sides. The outcome could set a precedent on the boundaries of political data collection and the use of digital verification in party enrolment campaigns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Decoding ECI's counter affidavit on SIR
The story so far: The Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court on July 21, in response to the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise currently underway in Bihar. The text in the 789-page ECI affidavit is only 88 pages long; bulky annexures run into almost 700 pages. Around 625 pages of these annexures comprise representations received by the ECI from various political parties, along with their annexures. What's the rationale for a citizenship test? The compendium of complaints regarding defects in electoral rolls received by the ECI in 2024-2025 mostly contains those filed by BJP units from Delhi, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. One complaint each has been received from the AAP in Delhi, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Trinamool Congress in West Bengal and the Maha Vikas Agadi (Congress, NCP-SP and Shiv Sena) in Maharashtra. A preliminary review of the complaints annexed with the ECI's affidavit reveals that they mostly pertain to typical defects like duplication of names in the voter list, non-deletion of deceased voters, exclusion of eligible voters and fake or fraudulent voter registration. None of the complaints involve the electoral rolls of Bihar, nor does any of the complaints allege instances of illegal migrants from foreign countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc. , being included in the electoral rolls in any State. The complaints, which account for almost 80% of the volume of ECI's counter affidavit, do not provide any evidence or justification for the ongoing SIR exercise in Bihar or a nationwide citizenship test of electors across the country, for which the affidavit vehemently argues. Is it legally tenable? The counter affidavit invokes Article 326 which specifies that 'every person who is a citizen of India... shall be entitled to be registered as a voter', and also Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which mandates the preparation of electoral rolls 'under the superintendence, direction and control' of the ECI, to insist on its having statutory authority to undertake a 'de novo' preparation of electoral rolls, requiring electors already registered in the electoral rolls to submit fresh documentary proof of their citizenship. The affidavit also rebuffs the apex court's advisory to include Aadhaar card, the Elector's Photo Identity card (EPIC) and ration card in the list of permissible documents for the SIR exercise. There are several fallacies in the ECI's arguments. First, the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors whose names were registered by the ECI through due process. Another due process is also available for the deletion of non-citizens from electoral rolls on the basis of specific complaints backed by evidence. Have those due processes been rendered dysfunctional by the overwhelming nature of inclusion errors vis-a-vis illegal migrants? If so, the ECI's affidavit should have been able to present precise data on the number of complaints received on the inclusion of foreign nationals or illegal migrants in the electoral rolls of Bihar, and all other States for that matter. In the absence of such evidence, ECI's logic that inclusion in electoral rolls through summary revisions are only provisional and only those added or verified through intensive revisions like SIR have more authenticity, does not hold. Second, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, does not make any distinction between electors added through summary revisions and those added through 'special intensive revisions'. While section 21(3) of the law permits the ECI to direct a 'special revision' for individual constituencies or their parts, the word 'intensive' does not find any mention in the law. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 were amended in 1987 to introduce two separate categories of electoral roll revisions, summary and intensive. However, even the 1960 rules do not provide any specific definition or modalities for 'intensive' revisions. The statutory foundation of SIR, therefore, remains fuzzy. Third, the arguments provided by ECI's affidavit in rejecting the Supreme Court's advice to include EPIC, as one of the documents to prove eligibility, contradicts the exemption granted to electors included in the 2003 electoral roll from furnishing any document under SIR 2025 other than 'the relevant extracts of the said part showing their name in the 2003 electoral roll'. ECI's affidavit states that the children of electors included in the 2003 rolls have also been allowed to use this avenue to prove their eligibility. Such privileging of the inclusions in the 2003 electoral rolls, over and above all electoral rolls published by the ECI in two subsequent decades, is legally questionable. The ECI's affidavit mentions that the 2003 Bihar SIR guidelines prescribed four indicative documents as proof of citizenship, namely 'NRC Register where available; Citizenship Certificate; valid passport; or Birth Certificate.' However, a copy of the 2003 SIR guidelines have not been provided with the affidavit. Was there any house-to-house enumeration and citizenship verification for the entire electorate during the 2003 Bihar SIR on the basis of such documentary requirements? How many illegal migrants were detected and deleted from rolls in 2003? These facts need to be ascertained and debated before accepting inclusions in the 2003 electoral rolls as probative evidence of citizenship under SIR. Fourth, the ECI's affidavit asserts the applicability of the contrived citizenship criteria introduced by the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003 in SIR 2025; whereby (a) Each voter has to submit documentary proof of his/her date and place of birth; (b) For those born between July 1, 1987 and December 2, 2004, additional documentary proof of date and place of birth of either father or mother is required; and (c) For those voters born after December 2, 2004, both parents' date and place of birth are required to be submitted. The constitutionality of this controversial citizenship amendment legislation, which had proposed to introduce a National Register of Indian Citizens (NRC), remains under challenge before the apex court. The rules under this Act were notified even before the CAA, 2003, was passed and notified, casting doubts over its legal status. Most importantly, the Registrar General of India never issued any order to initiate the NRC, as stipulated in the citizenship rules. Hence, the NRC does not exist anywhere in India, except for the State of Assam. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had clarified in December 2019 that his Cabinet had never discussed the initiation of the NRC since 2014. When the authorities statutorily mandated to initiate the NRC and its underlying citizenship scheme apropos CAA, 2003 have decided not to proceed with it till date, can the ECI claim to have any legal mandate to implement the same citizenship test in Bihar, in lieu of an electoral roll revision? What will be the impact? The ECI's counter affidavit has tried to counter criticisms regarding the exclusionary nature of the SIR exercise by highlighting that filled up enumeration forms have already been collected and digitised from over 90% of the 7.89 crore electors in Bihar. The moot point here is that the ECI's affidavit does not disclose the number or proportion of digitised enumeration forms which are accompanied with the required documents. Rather, the affidavit mentions that 'each elector who has submitted the enumeration form with or without documents will be included in the draft roll to be published August 1, 2025.' Thus, the coverage of over 90% of the electors in the SIR process has been attained by postponing the requirement for document submission along with the enumeration forms. The scrutiny of enumeration forms and documents by the electoral registration officers are to commence only after the draft rolls are published. This does not testify for the inclusivity of the entire SIR process. The status of the SIR exercise reported in the ECI's affidavit contains data till July 18, 2025. The updated status provided by the ECI's press note on July 22 is reproduced in Table 1. Till then, around 21.35 lakh (2.7%) electors were yet to receive and submit their enumeration forms. Major political parties of Bihar were officially requested by the ECI to connect with the remaining electors, through their functionaries and booth level agents. Till July 24, around 7 lakh forms were not received. Inability of the ECI in ensuring cent percent coverage through its own machinery of booth level officers (BLOs) and volunteers further exposes the impracticality of the SIR schedule. Moreover, over 53 lakh (6.7%) electors were not found at their residential addresses by the BLOs. While around 1 lakh among them are reported as 'not traceable' and another 7 lakh as multiple enrolments, the numbers of deceased electors at over 21.6 lakh (2.7%) and those permanently migrated at 31.5 lakh (4%), are quite significant. Whether errors are involved in such exclusions can be known only after the publication of the draft rolls. The constituency-wise distribution of these exclusions also remains unreported. The impact of deletion of migrated electors can be substantial if they are clustered within a few constituencies and demographics. Why is ECI not accepting Aadhaar, ration cards? ECI's non-acceptance of the apex court's advisory on including Aadhaar and ration cards in the list of indicative documents rests on tenuous grounds. The ECI's own enumeration form for SIR 2025 seeks the Aadhaar number from all electors, albeit on a voluntary basis. The ECI's affidavit states that statutorily 'Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship', which is specious logic, because statutorily the ECI has no mandate to conduct a citizenship test. In the case of ration cards, the ECI has cited 'widespread existence of fake ration cards' as the ground for non-acceptance. A data table in ECI's affidavit on the coverage of some of the eleven eligibility documents for SIR 2025 in Bihar show 13.89 crore 'Residence certificates' and 8.72 crore caste certificates issued from 2011 to 2025, far exceeding the total number of electors in the electoral rolls. If residence certificates can be accepted as eligibility proof of SIR 2025, despite their total number exceeding Bihar's current aggregate population, how can ration cards be rejected as a document on the grounds of being forgery-prone? Any widely accessible official card or document in a vast country like India with millions of poor and illiterate citizens would be prone to counterfeits — currency notes offering the most common example. Solutions need to be found in plugging systemic loopholes, enhanced vigilance and effectively designed counter-measures. Unless the ECI revises its rigid insistence on citizenship determination, the Bihar SIR exercise is likely to result in a fiasco bigger than the four-year-long NRC process in Assam between 2015 and 2019, which was eventually rejected by all those who demanded it after reportedly spending ₹1,600 crore of public money. (Prasenjit Bose is an economist and activist)
India.com
17 minutes ago
- India.com
Election Commission Fact Checks Rahul Gandhi Over Karnataka Poll Fraud Allegation
The Election Commission of India on Thursday fact-checked Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, saying that the Congress party did not file any appeal against Karnataka poll results and now claiming wrongdoing on the part of the poll body. Reacting to a video of Rahul Gandhi, the ECI said that the claim made in the social media post was misleading and baseless. "As far as Electoral Rolls of Karnataka Lok Sabha 2024 is concerned, not a single appeal was filed with DM/ CEO of Karnataka, which was a valid legal remedy available to INC under Section 24 of RP Act 1950; and as far as conduct of Lok Sabha elections 2024 is concerned, out of 10 Election Petitions, not a single Election Petition was filed by any losing INC candidate, which was a legal remedy available to INC under Section 80 of RP Act 1951," said the ECI. #ECIFactCheck Claim made in this social media post is misleading and baseless May refer to the link provided below to read in detail the response from CEO Karnataka: Read detail in image below — Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) July 24, 2025 Rahul Gandhi's Allegation Earlier on Thursday, LoP Rahul Gandhi said that the Election Commission is not functioning as the Election Commission of India. 'Today, they (ECI) made a statement. This is complete nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the Election Commission is not doing its job. We have concrete, hundred per cent proof of the Election Commission allowing cheating in a seat in Karnataka. It is a hundred per cent proof. We just looked at one constituency, and we found it. I am absolutely convinced that constituency after constituency, this is the drama that is taking place. Thousands and thousands of new voters, aged 50 years, 45 years, 60 and 65 years are added. We have caught them. I want to send a message to the Election Commission: if you think you are going to get away with this, if your officers think they can get away, you are mistaken. We are going to come for you," said LoP Rahul Gandhi. Karnataka CEO's Response The Election Commission also shared data put on X by the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer. The Karnataka CEO on Thursday also refuted the charges by Rahul Gandhi. Rejecting election cheating charges, the Karnataka CEO said that the electoral rolls are prepared transparently and copies were shared with the recognised parties. "As informed by the Election Commission of India already, Electoral Rolls are shared with all recognised political parties. During Special Summary Revision-2024, which was taken up before the General Elections to Lok Sabha-2024, the copies of draft and final electoral rolls of all 224 assembly constituencies were provided to representatives of all registered and recognised political parties, including the Indian National Congress (INC)," said Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka V. Anbukumar. Anbukumar pointed out that between the draft and final publication of rolls, about 9.17 lakh claims and objections were received for consideration. His statement also highlighted that no appeals were received at that time, even as the political parties can file an appeal against wrongful additions or deletions in the Electoral Rolls. "As per law, an appeal can be filed against wrongful additions or deletions in the Electoral Rolls. No appeals received," said Anbukumar.
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
US Lawmaker Presses Defense For Details On Microsoft's Chinese Engineers
San Francisco: A US lawmaker on Thursday pressed the US Defense Department for further details on what information the US military shared with Chinese engineers as part of a cloud computing services contract with Microsoft. After a report by investigative journalism publication ProPublica, Microsoft last week said it has ended the practice of using China-based engineers to provide technical support to the US military under the supervision of US "digital escorts" who may not have had the expertise to assess whether the work was a cybersecurity threat. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a two-week review to ensure other contractors were not employing the same practices. In a letter seen by Reuters, US Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, asked Hegseth to provide details to lawmakers on what information Chinese engineers accessed and to disclose "the discovery of potential security incidents or malicious events that have already occurred or are likely to occur." In addition, Cotton asked whether Microsoft had been required to perform self-audits of the program and if so, the results of those audits. "While I applaud your actions, I am concerned that the Department (of Defense) is hampered by agreements and practices unwisely adopted by your predecessors, including contracts and oversight processes that fail to account for the growing Chinese threat," Cotton wrote in the letter.
