Calcutta High Court Rules Voter ID and Other Documents Insufficient for Proving Indian Citizenship

The Calcutta High Court has determined that documents such as voter ID cards, Aadhaar, and PAN cards do not serve as definitive proof of Indian citizenship. This ruling came while dismissing a 'habeas corpus' petition related to an individual's detention. The case involved a person whose name was removed from the voter list during the 'Special Intensive Revision' (SIR) process in West Bengal. The petition was filed by Suman Molla, who claimed that his nephew Nasir had been sent to a detention camp, despite an appeal against the removal of his name from the voter list still being pending. The court stated that neither the petitioner nor the detained individual had provided evidence of Nasir's Indian citizenship, leading to the court's refusal to intervene in the authorities' decision.

To argue that he was an Indian citizen and not a foreign national, the petitioner relied on Nasir's voter ID, Aadhaar card, PAN card issued by the Income Tax Department, and bank passbook. However, the division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta clarified that these documents do not conclusively establish Indian citizenship. They noted that a voter ID merely indicates inclusion in the voter list and highlighted that Nasir's name had been removed during the 2026 SIR process. The bench further stated that merely opening a bank account does not serve as proof of citizenship. The court emphasized that both the petitioner and the detained individual failed to present necessary evidence under the 'Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.'

Recognizing that neither party had proven Nasir's citizenship, the court opted not to interfere with the authorities' decision and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

The bench noted that Nasir was detained on June 18, 2026, based on a circular from the Ministry of Home Affairs dated May 2, 2025, and is currently held in a detention center. The court mentioned that individuals detained under this circular are given 60 days to prove their Indian citizenship; however, by the date of the ruling on July 20, Nasir had not submitted any documentation to establish his citizenship. The court also permitted the petitioner's lawyer to communicate with Nasir via phone through state facilities. During this conversation, Nasir claimed that his parents had died in India. Nevertheless, the court observed that despite this assertion, he could not specify where they were buried.

The bench requested information regarding the detained individual's parents to potentially conduct a DNA test on their remains, should the petitioner agree, to verify that they were indeed in India. However, since both the detained individual and the petitioner refused to identify the locations of the remains, the court concluded that there were adverse implications regarding the citizenship of the detained individual’s parents.