Aadhaar, PAN, bank account not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently rejected a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of a man whose name was struck off from the voters list after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls [Suman Molla v. The State of West Bengal and Ors]

A Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta examined various documents relied upon by the petitioner – a relative of the detainee – to establish his Indian citizenship, but found them insufficient to give any conclusive finding on his nationality.

In the verdict passed on July 20, the Court ruled that the detainee’s earlier voter identity card was only an evidence of his enrollment in the electoral roll, from which he now stands deleted. Thus, the ID was not a conclusive proof with regard to his Indian citizenship, the Bench said.

The Court also observed that Aadhaar card, Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by the Income Tax Department and opening of a bank account by a person in itself are not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship.

"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."

Further, the Court said that the land record of the detainee's great-grandfather and grandfather also did not conclusively establish his Indian citizenship.

“In the supplementary affidavit, the judgment of Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey (supra) is relied upon alongwith 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,” the Court added.

The petition was moved by one Suman Molla, who claimed to be an uncle of the detainee. It was submitted that he was detained during the pendency of his appeal challenging removal of his name from the electoral rolls.

The Court said that the detainee was being proceeded in accordance with a circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and that the State government’s verification had found him to be a Bangladeshi national.

It added that the petitioner had failed to disclose the birth certificate of the detainee. It also noted that the name of the detainee's father varied from document to document. 

“Maternal aunty and the detainee cannot be connected by the documents places 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,” it further said.

The Court further noted that the petitioner in a police complaint had described himself as the cousin brother of the detainee, but in the writ petition, he declared himself to be his uncle. 

Further, the Bench noted that in its conversation with the detainee, he failed to identify the places where his parents were put to rest in India. 

“Since, the detainee and the writ petitioner refuse to identify the places where the mortal remains of the parents of the detainee are lying, we draw an adverse inference as against the detainee with regard to his parents being Indian citizens,” it ruled.

Considering all these discrepancies, the Court ruled that the detainee failed to prove his Indian citizenship and thus rejected the habeas corpus plea challenging his detention.

Advocates Mokaram Hossain, Razzak Hossain and Karnab Biswas represented the petitioner.

Advocates Dibasish Basu, Sneha Dutta and Purnendu Das represented the State.

Senior Advocate Souvik Nandy with Advocates Arijit Majumder and Shreyashi Sarkar represented the Union government.

[Read Judgment]