Calcutta High Court Dismisses Citizenship Claims Based on Aadhaar and PAN
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition that challenged the detention of an individual whose name had been removed from the electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral lists. The case, Suman Molla v. The State of West Bengal and Ors, was presided over by Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta.
The petitioner, a relative of the detainee, presented several documents to substantiate the individual’s claim to Indian citizenship. However, the bench found these documents insufficient to conclusively determine his nationality. The verdict, issued on July 20, highlighted that a previous voter identity card merely indicated the detainee’s past inclusion in the electoral roll, from which he had been removed. This card, the Court ruled, did not serve as definitive proof of Indian citizenship.
Key Observations by the Court
The Court further elaborated that documents such as the Aadhaar card, Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by the Income Tax Department, and a bank account do not conclusively establish Indian citizenship. In the words of the Bench, “AADHAAR Card, cannot by itself be a conclusive proof of Indian citizen. So also a Permanent Account Number issued by the Income Tax Department. Opening of a Bank Account, by itself, again is not a proof of Indian citizenship.”
Additionally, land records relating to the detainee’s great-grandfather and grandfather were also deemed inadequate for determining citizenship. The Court noted, “In the supplementary affidavit, the judgment of Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey (supra) is relied upon along with C.S. Record of Rights and passport issued in favour of the paternal aunty of the detainee. Those again, on their own do not establish the Indian citizenship of the detainee conclusively.”
Discrepancies and Detention
The petition, filed by Suman Molla who claimed to be the detainee’s uncle, indicated that the detainee was held during an ongoing appeal against his electoral roll removal. The Court acknowledged that the detainee’s detention was in line with a Ministry of Home Affairs circular, and the State government’s verification had identified him as a Bangladeshi national.
More Read
The petitioner failed to provide the detainee’s birth certificate, and discrepancies in the father’s name across documents were noted. The Court stated, “Maternal aunty and the detainee cannot be connected by the documents placed on record. Indian citizenship of the persons through whom the detainee seeks to connect as descent is also not established. Citizenship of the detainee by descent is not established.”
The bench also highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s relationship to the detainee, noting a police complaint where he described himself as a cousin, contrary to the writ petition where he claimed to be an uncle. Furthermore, during interactions with the detainee, he was unable to identify the burial sites of his parents in India, prompting the Court to draw an adverse inference regarding their citizenship.
Conclusion
Given these inconsistencies and lack of conclusive evidence, the Court rejected the habeas corpus petition, upholding the detainee’s status as a non-citizen. The petitioner was represented by Advocates Mokaram Hossain, Razzak Hossain, and Karnab Biswas, while the State was represented by Advocates Dibasish Basu, Sneha Dutta, and Purnendu Das. Senior Advocate Souvik Nandy, with Advocates Arijit Majumder and Shreyashi Sarkar, represented the Union government.
