15 documents including PAN, EPIC not sufficient proof of Indian citizenship: Gauhati HC rejects man’s claim | Today’s news
The Gauhati High Court recently upheld an Aliens Tribunal order declaring a local resident a foreigner after it found that 15 documents he relied on failed to prove his Indian citizenship, legal news website Bar and Bench reported.
A bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan dismissed a petition filed by 38-year-old Aminul Hoque, a resident of Guwahati, challenging the 2019 order of the Aliens Tribunal.
Read also | How the Indian passport compared globally
Claiming to be an Indian citizen by birth, Hoque relied on a number of documents, including the National Register of Citizens (NRC) from 1951, electoral rolls from 1966, a plot sale deed from 1973, his PAN card, his Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and school records to establish when his family closed at 7:00 p.m. Bar and bench he said.
After examining this evidence, the court concluded that Hoque had failed to prove his citizenship.
“Though the petitioner has produced 15 (fifteen) documents as exhibits, it does not appear to help the petitioner to prove that he was able to discharge his burden as required by Section 9 of the Aliens Act, 1964 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen,” the court said.
The Supreme Court’s pronouncement came days after the Union Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reiterated that an Indian passport is only a travel document and should not be treated as irrefutable proof of citizenship. The MEA clarification was issued on June 24 during a briefing on India’s expanding passport and mobility ecosystem as India marked the 14th Passport Seva Divas.
The Union Government’s position rested on different legal frameworks: citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955, while passports are issued under the Passports Act, 1967.
Government documents do not establish citizenship: HC
The Guwahati court also clarified that identity documents issued by government authorities cannot by themselves establish citizenship.
“It is well settled that PAN Card and EPIC are not proof of citizenship,” the court said.
Read also | Tharoor for dual passport policy and Aadhaar documents to end series of proofs of citizenship
The court ultimately dismissed the petition, allowing the implications of the Aliens Tribunal’s 2019 order to follow.
Advocate MU Mahmud appeared for Aminul Hoque (petitioner). Central Government Council B Deka represented the Union. Standing counsel AI Ali represented the Election Commission of India.
The Guahati court noted that Hoque had failed to establish a continuous documentary link between him and his supposed ancestors.
Hoque claimed that differences in the spelling of his parents’ and grandparents’ names in official records were the result of clerical errors. He also explained that his family had moved from one village to another due to erosion caused by the Brahmaputra river, which explained why their names appeared in the electoral rolls from different places over the years, the Bar and Bench said.
Read also | US Gets New ‘Patriotic Passport’ With Trump Image: ‘Welcome But Be Good’
However, the court noted that it was not particularly concerned with minor spelling differences in names. It was found that Hoque failed to produce conclusive evidence to show that the family appearing in the records of different villages were the same family.
The court also noted that there were unexplained changes in age, family members and places of residence in the documents. He also noted that there are no independent records to support the claim that the family moved over time.
Although the petitioner has produced 15 (fifteen) documents as exhibits, it does not appear to help the petitioner to establish that he was able to discharge his burden as required by Section 9 of the Aliens Act, 1964 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen.
The court also rejected Hoque’s reliance on computer-generated excerpts from the 1951 NRC, ruling that they were not proven in accordance with the Electronic Records Act.
(With Bar and Bench inputs)
