Gauhati High Court Clarifies Citizenship Proof Requirements

Court's Ruling on Citizenship Documentation

Guwahati, Nov 13: The Gauhati High Court has determined that a PAN card and an Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) alone do not suffice to establish Indian citizenship or familial ties unless corroborated by the original documents used for their issuance.

This ruling came as the court dismissed a writ petition from Kulchan Begum of Darrang district, who contested a 2018 decision by the Foreigners Tribunal in Mangaldai that labeled her a foreigner who entered India post-March 25, 1971.

A division bench, including Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, upheld the Tribunal's findings in a judgment delivered on November 5, asserting that the evidence provided by the petitioner was inadequate to prove her citizenship or her claimed familial connections.

The court remarked, "The PAN card and EPIC presented by the petitioner do not constitute proof of citizenship," emphasizing that these documents cannot be accepted as evidence without the supporting records being validated.

Begum asserted that she was born on April 25, 1977, and raised in Luitpar, Kharghuli, Guwahati. She identified her grandparents as Sabed Ali and Jaheda Khatun, claiming their names were listed in the 1966 and 1970 electoral rolls of Nosotra village in the former Kamrup district. She also named Abu Chand Mohammad as her father.

To substantiate her citizenship claim, Begum referenced the electoral rolls from 1966 and 1970, her father's PAN card and voter ID, her own EPIC, a family ration card, the 2018 electoral roll, and an acknowledgment receipt for her NRC application.

Additionally, she contended that her father was an Indian citizen, as evidenced by his name in electoral records, and noted his candidacy in the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Barpeta and the 2011 Assam Assembly election from Baghbar. He had also served as an elected councillor for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation in 2013.

However, the High Court concluded that her father's political involvement and electoral history did not substantiate her claimed relationship with him.

The bench highlighted discrepancies in the family history presented by the petitioner and the ages recorded in the electoral rolls, noting that her father's name first appeared in the 1997 electoral roll, where he was listed as 50 years old.

The court further indicated that there was no evidence confirming the continuous residence of her claimed grandparents and father in Assam from 1970 to 1997. It also found that the documents linking her family, including the ration card and electoral records, did not adequately establish her relationship with her alleged parents.

The court ruled that the certificate from the Area Sabha representative could not be relied upon, as its author had not substantiated it.

Regarding the NRC application acknowledgment receipt, the bench stated that it could not be considered proof of citizenship, given that the final draft of the NRC had not been updated when the Foreigners Tribunal issued its opinion.

"None of the documents presented by the petitioner fulfill her obligation under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to demonstrate that she is an Indian citizen and the daughter of Indian parents," the judgment concluded.

The case against Begum was initiated in 2000 under the previous Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, before being transitioned to the Foreigners Tribunal system after the Supreme Court invalidated the legislation in 2005.

In upholding the Tribunal's decision, the High Court dismissed her petition and revoked the interim bail that had been granted to her on April 18, 2022.