Against this backdrop, the Gauhati High Court’s decision in Aminul Hoque v. Union of India & Ors, delivered on June 30, 2026, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the opinion of Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Kamrup (Metro), once again reiterates the settled principles governing proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946. In this June 30 judgement, the Court reaffirmed that the burden under Section 9 of the Act rests squarely upon the proceedee; that documentary evidence, rather than oral assertions, must establish citizenship; that writ courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot function as appellate authorities over findings of Foreigners Tribunals; and that discrepancies in documentary evidence may legitimately defeat a citizenship claim where linkage with pre-1971 ancestors remains unproved.

“Thus, though the petitioner had exhibited 15 (fifteen) documents as exhibits, the same does not appear to help the petitioner to establish that he has been able to discharge his burden as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1964 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian Citizen.” (Para 27)

The judgment may sound as if it is entirely consistent with recent jurisprudence developed by the Gauhati High Court. However as the 2013 judgement of the same Court in Moslem Mandal shows, this is not how this particular court has ruled, always. Conflicting verdicts make access for substantive justice an even greater challenge for individual, impoverished victims of citizenship. The Aminul Hoque verdict relies upon familiar propositions regarding the burden of proof, admissibility of electronic records, evidentiary value of electoral rolls, proof of linkage documents and the narrow contours of certiorari jurisdiction. While the Court appears to meticulously examine each document produced by the petitioner, its treatment and evaluation especially given everyday realities behind “spelling differences” and “date differentials” in official documents discards their value. The entire verdict runs in to 21 pages.

Hence, the judgment raises larger constitutional questions about the evolving nature of citizenship adjudication in India. The decision reflects what may be described as a burden-centric approach, where the primary inquiry revolves around whether the proceedee has satisfactorily established lineage through admissible documentary evidence. Questions relating to procedural fairness, the practical realities of maintaining documentary continuity over several decades, and the heightened constitutional consequences flowing from a declaration of foreigner status receive comparatively limited engagement.

These concerns assume particular significance in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India, where a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta substantially reiterated formerly established jurisprudence governing Foreigners Tribunal proceedings. While affirming that Section 9 continues to place the burden upon the individual to establish Indian citizenship, the Supreme Court simultaneously clarified that this burden “operates within a legal process” and cannot replace the Tribunal’s obligation to conduct a fair, lawful and reasoned adjudication. The Court further held that citizenship proceedings remain subject to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, emphasising that procedural fairness extends to “any person”, irrespective of whether they ultimately succeed in proving citizenship.

Detailed report on the judgement may be read here.

Although Aminul Hoque predates that decision, it provides an important lens through which the Supreme Court’s subsequent intervention may be understood. Substantially varying interpretations –even by constitutional courts –on the rigour of evidentiary procedures before Foreigners Tribunals have only obfuscated a life-and-death issue further. The present judgment reflects the evidentiary challenges routinely encountered in Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal regime: fragmented documentary records, changing spellings of names, migration across villages due to erosion and displacement, inconsistencies in electoral rolls, reliance upon legacy data, and the perennial difficulty of establishing genealogical continuity spanning several decades.

Rather than merely determining the fate of one individual, the judgment illustrates the structural tensions embedded within citizenship adjudication itself—between subjective evaluations of the statutory burden and constitutional fairness, documentary precision and lived realities, judicial restraint and meaningful scrutiny, and ultimately between sovereign power and individual liberty.

Facts giving rise to the dispute

The proceedings arose from an opinion dated February 28, 2019 passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in FT Case No. FT(KM)-4/1077/2017. Acting upon a reference made by the competent authorities, the Tribunal declared the petitioner, Aminul Hoque, to be a foreigner who had entered India after March 25, 1971, thereby attracting the consequences contemplated under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Challenging this opinion, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner asserted that he was an Indian citizen by birth and traced his lineage through his father Mohiruddin Sheikh (also described in different documents as Mahruddin Sheikh, Mohiruddin and Mohir Uddin) and his grandfather Pasan Ali (also appearing as Pashan Sheikh/Pachan Ali in different records). According to the defence, the family originally resided at village Dhobakura, later shifted to Ghugudoba owing to erosion caused by the Brahmaputra, and subsequently settled at Hashdoba following family partition and migration over the years. The petitioner contended that these successive movements explained the appearance of his family in electoral rolls relating to different villages across different years.

To establish this lineage, the petitioner produced an extensive documentary record comprising fifteen exhibits. These included extracts from the 1951 NRC, certified electoral rolls of 1966, 1970, 1979, 1985, 1989, 1997, 2005, 2013, 2015 and 2017, a registered sale deed executed in favour of his projected grandfather in 1973, his PAN Card, EPIC, and a school certificate issued by the Headmaster of Hashdoba Anchalik High School. He also examined himself as DW-1 and produced his projected father as DW-2 in an attempt to establish the necessary family linkage between the pre-1971 ancestors and himself.

Clearly, the documentary record appeared substantial. Unlike several Foreigners Tribunal cases where the proceedee herein relies upon only a handful of documents, and the petitioner sought to construct a continuous genealogical chain spanning over five decades. The central question before both the Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, was not the absence of documentary material but whether the documents, read together, successfully established an uninterrupted legal link connecting the petitioner with ancestors whose presence in India prior to March 25, 1971 stood established.

It is in answering that question that the judgment assumes wider significance, for the High Court’s analysis demonstrates the exceptionally narrow –and even bureaucratically rigid–evidentiary scrutiny presently employed in citizenship adjudication. Rather than treating the documents cumulatively, the Court subjected each exhibit to independent examination before testing whether the entire chain remained internally consistent. Any unexplained discrepancy—whether relating to age, spelling, relationship, village, family composition or documentary proof—was treated as capable of weakening the overall linkage claim.

The resulting analysis reveals a judicial methodology that prioritises documentary perfection above all else, raising broader questions about the practical ability of rural citizens (or any citizens from the marginalised sections) to satisfy evidentiary standards in proceedings carrying the gravest of civil consequences.

Another detailed report on an earlier judicial treatment of documentary discrepancies may be read here.

The Court’s evidentiary analysis: Why every document failed to establish citizenship

The Gauhati High Court’s judgment is disturbing not only because it rejects the petitioner’s claim outright, but because of the meticulous manner in which it appears to scrutinise every document relied upon to establish citizenship. Rather than approaching the petitioner’s evidence cumulatively –and with an application of reasoning and logic– the Court examined each document individually, testing its admissibility, authenticity, evidentiary value and ability to establish the crucial element of linkage. Ultimately, the Court concluded that while some documents may have demonstrated the existence of particular individuals at different points in time, none successfully established the “connections” of the petitioner to an ancestor whose presence in India prior to March 25, 1971 stood legally established.

The judgment therefore illustrates a recurring feature of Foreigners Tribunal litigation in Assam: possession of numerous documents does not necessarily translate into proof of citizenship. What the law requires is an unbroken documentary chain demonstrating lineage, identity and continuity across generations.

• The 1951 NRC extract: A foundational document rejected

Among the most significant documents relied upon by the petitioner was a computer-generated extract of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), purportedly showing the name of his projected grandfather, Pasan Ali. Since the 1951 NRC predates the statutory cut-off date of March 25, 1971, such a document, if accepted, could have provided a crucial starting point for establishing ancestral presence in India.

The High Court, however, refused to attach evidentiary value to the document. The Court observed that the extract produced before the Tribunal was not the original NRC register but a computer-generated copy downloaded from the NRC database. As such, it constituted an electronic record within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act. Since no certificate satisfying the mandatory requirements of Section 65B accompanied the document, the Court held that it was inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal was justified in excluding it from consideration. Arguably this is a hyper-technical rejection of an otherwise accepted document. Put differently, the state could have been called upon by the Court to produce its own digital record of the same roll for re-verification.

The Court relied upon settled jurisprudence governing electronic evidence to conclude that compliance with Section 65B is not merely procedural but mandatory when electronic records are sought to be proved.

This aspect of the judgment is particularly significant because many citizenship claims in Assam increasingly rely upon digitised legacy data generated during the NRC exercise. By insisting upon strict compliance with Section 65B, the Court effectively raises the evidentiary threshold for proving legacy records that are now maintained and accessed electronically.

From a doctrinal standpoint, the reasoning is consistent with the law governing electronic evidence. Yet it also raises practical concerns. Legacy data made available by government authorities for NRC verification is frequently accessed through official digital repositories rather than physical registers. Requiring every proceedee before a Foreigners Tribunal to procure a formal Section 65B certificate may impose an additional procedural hurdle upon individuals who have little control over the manner in which such historical records are digitised or maintained. The judgment does not engage with this practical difficulty, instead applying the evidentiary rule in a strictly formal manner.

• Electoral rolls: Presence is not enough; linkage must also be proved

The petitioner also relied extensively upon electoral rolls spanning several decades. He produced voter lists of 1966 and 1970 showing the names of Pasan Ali and Mohiruddin Sheikh, voter lists of subsequent years reflecting changes in residence, and later electoral rolls containing his own name.

Ordinarily, electoral rolls prepared before the cut-off date constitute important evidence in citizenship proceedings because they establish that a particular individual was recognised as an elector in India before March 25, 1971.

However, the High Court reiterated another “settled” principle: pre-1971 electoral records establish only the existence of the recorded individual—not the citizenship of every person claiming descent from that individual. The crucial question always remains whether the proceedee has successfully proved the family linkage connecting himself to the projected ancestor.

Examining the electoral records closely, the Court noticed several inconsistencies. The names of the projected ancestors appeared across different villages—Dhobakura, Ghugudoba and Hashdoba. The petitioner explained these changes by referring to river erosion, displacement and subsequent settlement elsewhere, a phenomenon not uncommon in Assam’s flood-prone districts.

The Court did not reject this explanation outright. Instead, it held that the explanation itself required independent documentary corroboration. Merely asserting that a family migrated because of erosion could not bridge the evidentiary gap unless supported by continuous documentary material establishing that the individuals appearing in different electoral rolls were indeed the same persons. The question that begs attention here is what document if at all –across India and applicable to any or all displaced by natural disasters individuals or groups—could ever establish such “continuous documentary material.” Again, by adhering to a narrow manifestation of “established procedure” the Gauhati HC, a constitutional court, ignored the vast (and bitter reality) that hundreds of thousands of displaced Assamese face—the absence of these “legally convincing documents.”

The Court also examined the ages recorded in different voter lists and observed discrepancies which, in its view, weakened the reliability of the projected genealogy. These inconsistencies, though individually minor, assumed greater significance because the petitioner’s entire citizenship claim depended upon establishing an uninterrupted documentary chain extending across several decades.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that while the electoral rolls undoubtedly demonstrated the presence of persons bearing similar names, they did not satisfactorily establish that the petitioner was their lawful descendant.

• The registered sale deed: Ownership cannot establish lineage

Another important document relied upon by the petitioner was a registered sale deed executed in 1973 in favour of the projected grandfather. The petitioner argued that ownership of immovable property further corroborated the family’s long-standing residence in Assam.

The High Court accepted that the sale deed was a genuine registered document but observed that its evidentiary value remained limited.

A sale deed may establish ownership of land by the recorded purchaser. It does not, however, establish the identity of descendants claiming through that purchaser unless independent evidence proves the genealogical relationship between them.

Since the Court had already found the linkage evidence deficient, the sale deed could not independently prove the petitioner’s citizenship.

The judgment simply reiterates another practice followed by Foreigners Tribunal that do not often follow the rules of logic and reasoning of the Indian Evidence Act: documents proving property ownership cannot substitute proof of lineage. They merely establish that a particular person owned land; they do not establish that every claimant tracing ancestry to that person has successfully proved the relationship.

• PAN Card and EPIC: Identity documents are not proof of citizenship

The petitioner also relied upon his Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card and Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC). The High Court attached virtually no evidentiary weight to either document. Referring to earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that neither a PAN Card nor an EPIC constitutes proof of Indian citizenship. These documents primarily establish identity for administrative purposes and cannot override the statutory inquiry contemplated under the Foreigners Act.

The Court observed that issuance of such documents proceeds upon administrative verification and does not amount to a judicial determination of citizenship. Consequently, possession of these documents cannot discharge the burden imposed under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act.

The judgment once again reflects the narrow philosophy that often –though not always –governs citizenship litigation.

School certificate and oral evidence: Insufficient to bridge the evidentiary gap

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the judgment concerns the treatment of the petitioner’s school certificate and oral testimony. The petitioner relied upon a certificate issued by the Headmaster of Hashdoba Anchalik High School to establish his parentage and educational history.

The Court declined to rely upon the certificate because the Headmaster who issued it was not examined before the Tribunal and the original admission register from which the certificate was prepared was never produced. In the absence of foundational evidence proving how the entries were made, the Court held that the certificate possessed little evidentiary value. A more pro-active approach could have resulted in a constitutional court questioning the Foreigner Tribunal proceedings for this “lapse” rather than rejecting the proceedee’s claim altogether.

Similarly, although the petitioner’s projected father entered the witness box and attempted to establish the family relationship through oral testimony, the Court held that such evidence could not compensate for deficiencies in documentary proof.

The High Court also observed that oral assertions regarding lineage, however sincere, cannot by themselves discharge the burden imposed under Section 9 where documentary evidence capable of establishing family linkage is either absent or inconsistent.

In effect, questionably, the Court treated documentary evidence as the primary mode of proving citizenship, while oral testimony assumed only a corroborative role. Where the documentary chain itself remained incomplete, oral evidence was considered insufficient to cure the defect.

This approach reflects some –not all—of the the prevailing judicial emphasis on documentary certainty in citizenship adjudication. However, it simultaneously raises an important question: whether proceedings determining a person’s legal status should demand documentary continuity of a standard that vast numbers of Indians, rural citizens, particularly those displaced by erosion, migration or historical administrative deficiencies, may find exceptionally difficult to satisfy.

Judicial restraint and the limits of Article 226: Deference to the Foreigners Tribunal

Having concluded that the petitioner failed to “establish a satisfactory documentary chain linking him to his projected ancestors,” the Gauhati High Court turned to what ultimately became the decisive legal question: whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different factual conclusion from that reached by the Foreigners Tribunal. The Court answered this question firmly in the negative.

Relying upon a long line of precedents, the Bench reiterated that a writ court exercising certiorari jurisdiction does not function as an appellate forum over the findings of a Foreigners Tribunal. Its role is confined to examining whether the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction, followed the prescribed procedure, observed principles of natural justice and arrived at findings that are not perverse or unsupported by any evidence. Mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence does not justify interference under Article 226.

To reinforce this proposition, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, which continues to govern the scope of certiorari jurisdiction. The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, reiterating that writ courts cannot substitute their own factual conclusions merely because another view of the evidence may be possible.

Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal had examined every document placed before it, evaluated the oral testimony of both witnesses and assigned reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s claim. Unfortunately even though some oral testimonies –notably that of the Headmaster of the school were not recorded—the HC still came to this conclusion.

Whether those conclusions were ultimately correct on facts was, according to the Court, not a question that could ordinarily be reopened in writ proceedings. The judgment therefore reflects a pronounced judicial deference to the specialised role assigned to Foreigners Tribunals under the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order.

“In this case in hand, the petitioner has not been able to establish that the learned Tribunal had committed any patent error in appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, or that it considered extraneous materials or that the decision was based on ignorance of law or in disregard to the provisions of law.” (Para 30)

“In the light of the discussions made hereinbefore, the Court finds no material to hold that the opinion assailed in this writ petition is bad on facts or in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that the said opinion was perverse on any count whatsoever. Therefore, this challenge fails and consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.” (Para 31)

A burden-centric model of citizenship adjudication

Read holistically, the judgment reveals a judicial philosophy that has shaped Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence intermittently over the past two decades. The Court repeatedly returns to one statutory principle: Section 9 of the Foreigners Act places the burden of proving citizenship upon the proceedee. Everything else in the judgment flows from that premise.

The Court examines every document not to determine whether it raises a reasonable probability of Indian citizenship but to ascertain whether it conclusively discharges the burden imposed by Section 9. Where inconsistencies emerge, the benefit does not accrue to the proceedee. Instead, the deficiencies are treated as failures to satisfy the statutory burden. This approach may be described as burden-centric adjudication.

Under this model:

• the reference made by the State initiates the proceedings;
• the proceedee must affirmatively establish Indian citizenship;
• documentary evidence assumes primacy over oral testimony;
• every link in the genealogical chain must be independently proved;
• unexplained discrepancies weaken the entire claim; and
• failure to establish linkage results in the statutory burden remaining undischarged.

Doctrinally, this reasoning finds some support in earlier Supreme Court decisions, particularly Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, which upheld the reverse burden contained in Section 9 on the ground that questions relating to nationality, birth and ancestry lie especially within the knowledge of the individual concerned. Interestingly while Sonowal has been cited on this aspect –upholding burden of proof—the same judgement of the SC has been ignored when it comes to the crucial and material issue of material grounds for issuance of notice by the Assam Border Police in the first place.

The Gauhati High Court’s judgment faithfully applies that doctrine. However, the decision also exposes the practical implications of a jurisprudence that places overwhelming emphasis upon documentary precision in a region where historical documentation has often been fragmented by displacement, erosion, illiteracy and administrative inconsistency.

Does the judgment impose an unrealistic evidentiary standard?

Perhaps the most significant question emerging from the judgment is not whether the Court correctly applied existing law, but whether the evidentiary standard demanded by that law adequately reflects the realities of citizenship documentation in Assam. The petitioner produced fifteen documents spanning nearly seven decades. These included pre-1971 electoral rolls, a 1951 NRC extract, land records, a registered sale deed, multiple voter lists, school records, PAN and EPIC, along with oral evidence from his projected father. Yet none proved sufficient.

Individually, many documents were rejected because they did not establish linkage. Others were discounted because of technical deficiencies in admissibility. Some suffered from discrepancies in names, ages or villages. Oral testimony was treated as incapable of curing documentary gaps. From a purely evidentiary standpoint, each conclusion may appear legally sustainable. Viewed collectively, however, the judgment raises a broader concern.

Citizenship proceedings frequently involve families whose records extend back fifty or seventy years. Variations in spelling, transliteration between Assamese, Bengali and English, inconsistent recording of ages, migration due to annual flooding, subdivision of villages and changing administrative boundaries are hardly exceptional features of rural documentation in Assam—they are endemic realities. The judgment gives relatively little consideration to these structural realities. Instead, it proceeds upon an implicit assumption that documentary continuity should ordinarily be capable of precise reconstruction. Whether such an expectation is realistic is a question that remains largely unexplored.

The treatment of linkage evidence

Another notable aspect of the judgment is its treatment of linkage. The Court correctly observes that proving the existence of an ancestor in India before March 25, 1971 is only the first step. The decisive issue is whether the proceedee has successfully demonstrated that he is indeed the descendant of that ancestor. This requirement has become the cornerstone of Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal jurisprudence. Yet the present judgment illustrates how linkage has gradually evolved from a factual inquiry into an exceptionally demanding documentary exercise. Each missing document, each discrepancy in age, each variation in spelling and each unexplained shift in residence becomes capable of weakening the entire genealogical chain.

The consequence is that citizenship litigation often turns less upon the existence of ancestral residence than upon the ability to reconstruct documentary history with remarkable precision across multiple decades. Whether this reflects the legislative intention underlying Section 9 or has developed incrementally through judicial practice is itself worthy of closer examination.

The Supreme Court’s intervention: A shift from burden to process

It is against this background that the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India assumes profound significance. Although the Supreme Court did not dilute the statutory burden under Section 9, it fundamentally altered the constitutional framework within which that burden must operate. The Court categorically held that the burden on the proceedee does not replace the legal process itself.

Section 9, according to the Bench, authorises neither automatic declarations nor mechanical acceptance of police references. Instead, the burden functions within a fair adjudicatory process that requires meaningful notice, disclosure of the “main grounds”, objective consideration of the State’s evidence and a reasoned determination by the Tribunal.

Most crucially, this recent 21 page judgement in Aminol Haque delivered by the GHC is silent on the whether or not the Foreigners Tribunal had examined the basis of the “notice” issued by the Assam Border Police to the proceedee, whether the notice itself disclosed material grounds for justifying the proceedings around adjudication of a person’s citizenship etc. Did the Court in Aminol Haque examine whether the initiation of proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, non est, and void ab initio? The verdict is silent on this.[1]

Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that proceedings before Foreigners Tribunals remain subject to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution because both provisions protect “any person”, irrespective of citizenship. This marks a subtle but significant constitutional shift.

The focus moves beyond the question “Has the proceedee discharged the burden?”

It also asks:

• Was the adjudication fair?
• Was the notice meaningful?
• Were the grounds adequately disclosed?
• Did the Tribunal independently evaluate the evidence?
• Were reasons properly recorded?
• Was the conclusion reached through a lawful and reasoned process?

These questions receive comparatively limited attention in Aminul Hoque, where the primary emphasis remains upon whether the petitioner successfully proved his case.

The Supreme Court’s judgment does not invalidate this evidentiary inquiry. Rather, it insists that evidentiary assessment itself must occur within a procedurally robust constitutional framework. Consequently, Sabitri Dey represents not a rejection of Section 9 but a recalibration of its operation. The burden continues to rest upon the proceedee. But the legitimacy of the outcome now depends equally upon the fairness of the process through which that burden is evaluated. It is precisely this constitutional dimension that may shape the future trajectory of citizenship jurisprudence in Assam.

Beyond one case: What Aminul Hoque tells us about the future of citizenship adjudication

The Gauhati High Court’s decision ultimately dismissed the writ petition, affirmed the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal and upheld the declaration of the petitioner as a post March 25, 1971 foreigner. In doing so, the Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226. The Tribunal had, in the Court’s view, appreciated the documentary and oral evidence in accordance with law, and the petitioner’s failure to establish linkage meant that the statutory burden under Section 9 remained undischarged.

From a strictly doctrinal perspective, the judgment is difficult to fault. It faithfully follows established precedents of both the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the burden of proof, the evidentiary value of public documents, the admissibility of electronic records, and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226. It neither creates new legal principles nor departs from settled jurisprudence. Rather, it is emblematic of the legal framework that has governed Foreigners Tribunal litigation in Assam for nearly two decades. Yet, legal correctness is not the only lens through which judgments involving citizenship should be examined.

Citizenship occupies a unique constitutional position. Unlike most adjudicatory disputes, proceedings before a Foreigners Tribunal determine whether an individual belongs to the constitutional community itself. A declaration of foreigner status is not merely an adverse civil finding—it fundamentally alters the individual’s relationship with the State. It may lead to detention in transit camps, deportation, disenfranchisement, separation from family members who remain Indian citizens, and, in some cases, prolonged uncertainty regarding nationality. These are consequences of exceptional gravity, making citizenship litigation qualitatively different from ordinary civil or administrative proceedings.

It is precisely because of these consequences that the Supreme Court, in Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey, described citizenship and foreigner determination as matters of “high constitutional and legal significance.” The Court recognised that while Parliament may legitimately prescribe a reverse burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, that burden cannot eclipse the constitutional guarantees of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 21.

A jurisprudence in transition

Viewed together, Aminul Hoque and Sabitri Dey reveal that citizenship jurisprudence in India is undergoing a turbulent transition. The Gauhati High Court’s judgment represents what may be a clinical and narrow view on Foreigners Tribunal jurisprudence. The principal questions are:

• Has the proceedee produced admissible documents?
• Has family linkage been proved?
• Are the electoral rolls internally consistent?
• Have documentary discrepancies been satisfactorily explained?
• Has the burden under Section 9 been discharged?

However by leaping to look at evidence from a narrow, even bureaucratically top-heavy perspective, this judgement and others of its ilk fail to scrutinise the merit or applicability of the “notice” issued. As a wide range of international and national studies including those conducted by Citizens for Justice and Peace  have shown, the act and process of issuing such notices has been proven to be ad hoc, manifestly arbitrary and even selective. No rigour in enquiry by the authorities prior to such issuance neither takes place nor is examined by the Foreigner Tribunal.

The recent Supreme Court judgment by underlining a basic flaw in this approach reiterates a constitutional process model.

Under this approach, the inquiry expands beyond abstract and even subjective assessments of “documentary sufficiency” to include procedural legitimacy. The Court asks not only whether the proceedee proved citizenship, but also whether the adjudication itself satisfied constitutional standards. Accordingly, the focus shifts towards questions such as:

• Were the “main grounds” of the allegation properly disclosed?
• Was notice effectively served?
• Did the Tribunal independently evaluate the State’s evidence?
• Were the findings supported by reasons?
• Was the opportunity to defend meaningful rather than merely formal?
• Did the adjudication satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 and 21?

These questions do not replace Section 9; they contextualise it within constitutional guarantees.

The challenge of documentary perfection

One of the most striking features of Aminul Hoque is the extraordinarily high premium placed on documentary continuity. The judgment expects a seamless genealogical chain extending across multiple decades, villages and administrative records. Every link in that chain must withstand judicial scrutiny. Variations in names, inconsistencies in ages, changes in residence, absence of foundational records and deficiencies in proving public documents all become capable of defeating the claim.

Citizenship cannot be determined on speculation or conjecture. While some aspects of documentary proof may be needed as a reliable means of establishing lineage, ground circumstances, the sensitive issue of citizenship adjudication in Assam presents a unique factual context. Large sections of the population have experienced repeated displacement due to river erosion. Entire villages have disappeared and re-emerged elsewhere. Administrative boundaries have changed. Large sections of the local population migrate intra-state. Names have been transliterated between Assamese, Bengali and English with varying spellings. Ages have often been recorded approximately rather than precisely. Legacy records from the 1950s and 1960s were not created with future citizenship litigation in mind. These realities do not excuse deficiencies in evidence. But they do underscore the importance of evaluating documentary inconsistencies in context rather than in isolation.

The High Court’s judgment gives comparatively limited consideration to these structural realities, preferring instead to apply conventional evidentiary principles with considerable rigour. Whether that approach adequately accommodates the lived realities of documentation in Assam remains an open constitutional question.

Fairness as a constitutional imperative

Perhaps the most enduring contribution of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that it reframes citizenship adjudication as a constitutional exercise rather than merely a statutory one. By holding that Articles 14 and 21 protect “any person”, the Court has made clear that procedural fairness does not depend upon citizenship. The very purpose of the adjudication is to determine citizenship; fairness cannot therefore be withheld until citizenship is first established. This principle has implications extending well beyond ex-parte proceedings.

It informs the manner in which notices are drafted, evidence is appreciated, reasons are recorded, and proceedings are conducted. It reinforces the quasi-judicial character of Foreigners Tribunals and emphasises that their role is not merely to verify police references but to independently determine one of the most consequential legal questions an individual can face.

Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court’s decision in Aminul Hoque reinforces the reverse burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, demands strict proof of genealogical linkage, accords limited evidentiary value to identity documents such as PAN and EPIC, insists upon compliance with Section 65B for electronic records, and reiterates the narrow scope of judicial review under Article 226. The judgement is marked by a huge lacunae in not examining the grounds or methods employed in issuance of the “notice” in the first place. Hence, the judgment also illustrates the limitations of a jurisprudence centred almost exclusively upon documentary proof and evidentiary precision. Citizenship is unlike any other legal status. The consequences of an erroneous declaration extend beyond the courtroom, affecting liberty, family life, identity and belonging. Such consequences demand not only accurate fact-finding but also procedures that command constitutional legitimacy.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sabitri Dey on the other hand provides an essential constitutional complement to them. By reaffirming that the burden under Section 9 operates within a framework of fairness, reasoned adjudication and meaningful procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court has signalled that the legitimacy of citizenship determination depends as much upon the integrity of the process as upon the correctness of the final outcome. The Gauhati High Court’s adjudication remains limiting and burden-centric. The Supreme Court, crucially, introduces a more process-oriented constitutional framework.

The complete judgement may be read below:

[1] It is well settled inter alia by the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (II) v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 174 (paras 42, 55 and 60),  and Md. Rahim Ali, @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam (paras 35-41), as also by a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal, (2013) 1 GLT 809, that the Foreigners Tribunal is required to independently apply its mind to the grounds and materials produced before it by the State and come to a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings against any person who is alleged to be a foreigner.  It is further well settled that in the absence of grounds supported by objective materials which justify proceeding against a person, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue a notice calling upon him to appear and show cause why he should not be declared a foreigner.  It is further well settled that if the notice issued by the Tribunal does not contain the main grounds on the basis of which the Tribunal is satisfied that it is a fit case to proceed, then the entire proceedings are void ab initio and the reverse burden of proof under Section 9 of the Act does not get cast upon the proceedee, and any opinion rendered by the Tribunal is void and non est and has to be struck down on this ground alone.

Related:

SC remands 27 citizenship cases, reaffirms constitutional fairness

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

Abdul Sheikh Citizenship Case: Gauhati High Court issues notice, continues protection against deportation

“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

The post Documentary Burden beyond proof: Gauhati HC upholds foreigner declaration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The judgment in Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India and the connected appeals marks one of the most important pronouncements on the functioning of Foreigners Tribunals in Assam in recent months. While it does not decide the citizenship claims of any of the appellants, it significantly strengthens procedural safeguards governing citizenship determination by reiterating that the constitutional guarantees of fairness, equality and due process extend to every individual, including those whose nationality is under question. The ruling assumes particular significance amid renewed debates around citizenship documentation and verification processes, including the ongoing discussions surrounding electoral roll revisions and proof of citizenship.

Background: 27 appeals arising from ex-parte declarations

The batch comprised 27 appeals challenging judgments of the Gauhati High Court, which had upheld opinions of various Foreigners Tribunals, and, in certain older matters, the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals, declaring the appellants to be foreigners. Although the factual circumstances varied, a common thread ran through all the cases: the declarations had either been passed entirely ex-parte or had become effectively ex-parte after the individuals failed to continue participating in the proceedings.

In several matters, the appellants never appeared before the Tribunal despite notices being recorded as served. In others, they initially entered appearance, filed written statements or sought adjournments but subsequently defaulted, resulting in ex-parte opinions. A third category involved cases where the Gauhati High Court itself examined documentary evidence, including electoral rolls, family linkage documents and citizenship records, for the first time while exercising writ jurisdiction, instead of remitting the matters to the statutory Tribunal for factual determination.

The appellants contended that they had been declared foreigners without receiving a meaningful opportunity to contest the references and that the proceedings before the Tribunals failed to satisfy statutory as well as constitutional requirements of fairness. The Supreme Court, therefore, framed the central question not as whether Tribunals possess the power to proceed ex-parte, but whether such proceedings can culminate in declarations of foreigner status without meaningful adjudication, independent assessment of evidence and adherence to procedural safeguards.

Citizenship determination cannot become a mechanical exercise

At the heart of the judgment lies the Court’s unequivocal rejection of the proposition that the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act authorises Tribunals to mechanically declare a person a foreigner merely because the individual failed to appear or failed to discharge that burden.

“In view of the above factual backdrop, the common issue which arises for consideration is whether, in proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1946 Act”) and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 Order”), an opinion declaring a person to be a foreigner can be sustained where the proceeding before the Tribunal was ex parte or had become effectively ex parte, without a meaningful examination of service of notice, opportunity of hearing, the material forming the basis of the reference, and the evidence adduced by the State. The issue is not whether a Tribunal is powerless to proceed ex parte in every case. The narrower and more important question is whether an ex parte or effectively ex parte proceeding can result in a mechanical declaration of foreigner status without the Tribunal satisfying itself that the minimum requirements of lawful and fair adjudication have been met.” (Para 7)

Section 9 provides that where any question arises as to whether a person is a foreigner, the burden of proving that he or she is not a foreigner rests upon that individual, notwithstanding the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The State relied heavily upon this statutory burden to justify the Tribunal proceedings. However, the Court drew a crucial distinction between the burden of proof and the adjudicatory process itself.

Another crucial verdict that deals with these issues related to Assam’s acute citizenship crisis is the 2013 Gauhati High Court ruling in State of Assam vs Moslem Mandal that mandated that Foreigners Tribunals must adhere to fair investigation and due process, including providing the “main grounds” for suspicion, while acknowledging the severe burden of proof on individuals. This article on Citizens for Justice and Peace website examines the ramifications of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The Bench held that the rationale behind Section 9 is understandable because questions relating to birth, ancestry, family lineage, migration and nationality ordinarily lie within the special knowledge of the person concerned. Yet, the existence of such a burden does not absolve the Tribunal of its independent obligation to conduct a lawful inquiry.

Rejecting a mechanical interpretation of Section 9, the Court observed that the provision neither authorises automatic declarations nor permits the Tribunal to treat the mere existence of a reference—or the absence of the proceedee—as conclusive proof of foreigner status. Instead, the statutory burden operates only within the framework of a legally valid adjudicatory process.

“However, the existence of a statutory burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act cannot be read to mean that the Tribunal is relieved of its own obligation to conduct a lawful adjudication. Section 9 does not authorise a mechanical declaration. It does not permit the reference to be accepted as conclusive merely because it has been made. It also does not permit the Tribunal to treat absence of the proceedee as a substitute for examination of the material placed before it. The burden on the proceedee operates within a legal process. It does not replace the legal process itself.” (Para 12)

The Bench stressed that absence from proceedings cannot substitute proof. Even where a proceedee defaults, the Tribunal remains duty-bound to examine the material placed by the State, assess whether it supports the allegation and independently arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Reading Section 9 alongside the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964

The Court devoted considerable attention to harmonising Section 9 of the Foreigners Act with Paragraph 3 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which prescribes the procedure governing Tribunal proceedings.

Paragraph 3 requires the Tribunal to furnish the proceedee with the “main grounds” on which they are alleged to be a foreigner, provide a reasonable opportunity to make a representation, permit production of evidence and thereafter consider the evidence produced before rendering its opinion. It also obligates the Tribunal to hear persons considered necessary, record concise findings of fact and state its conclusions in the final order.

“The burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act must therefore be understood in the context of the 1964 Order. Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order requires that the proceedee must be served with the main grounds on which he or she is alleged to be a foreigner. The expression “main grounds” is of significance. It cannot be reduced to a bare assertion that the person is suspected to be a foreigner. The proceedee must know, at least in substance, the basis on which the allegation is founded. Only then can the proceedee meaningfully answer the reference and discharge the burden cast upon him or her.” (Para 13)

According to the Court, these procedural requirements demonstrate that Foreigners Tribunals perform adjudicatory, not merely administrative, functions.

The Bench rejected any interpretation reducing the expression “main grounds” to a vague allegation or a bare suspicion that an individual may be a foreigner. Rather, the Court held that the expression necessarily requires disclosure of the essential factual basis underlying the allegation, enabling the proceedee to meaningfully answer the reference.

Without such disclosure, the statutory burden imposed by Section 9 becomes impossible to discharge because an individual cannot reasonably rebut an undefined allegation or prove a negative without knowing the case they are required to meet.

“The procedure prescribed under Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order also shows that the proceeding before the Tribunal is not an administrative formality. The proceedee has to be given an opportunity to file a reply, produce evidence and be heard. The concerned Superintendent of Police may also produce evidence. The Tribunal may hear such persons as it considers necessary. After the case is heard, the Tribunal is required to submit its opinion. The final order must contain a concise statement of facts and the conclusion. These requirements are inconsistent with any notion that the Tribunal may simply affirm the reference upon non-appearance of the proceedee.” (Para 14)

The Court emphasised that the procedure prescribed under the 1964 Order contemplates far more than formal compliance. The opportunity to file replies and produce evidence must be genuine and effective rather than illusory. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot simply affirm the police reference upon the non-appearance of the proceedee without examining the material independently and recording reasons.

“Even in a case where the proceedee fails to appear despite service, the Tribunal continues to act as a quasi-judicial forum. It must satisfy itself that notice was duly served in accordance with law. It must examine whether the main grounds were made available to the proceedee. It must consider the evidence produced by the State. It must assess whether the material placed before it is capable of supporting the conclusion that the proceedee is a foreigner. It must record reasons, even if briefly. An ex parte proceeding may dispense with the participation of the absent party, but it does not dispense with objective consideration and meaningful adjudication by the Tribunal.” (Para 15)

Constitutional guarantees apply even when citizenship is under challenge

Having interpreted the statutory framework, the Supreme Court proceeded to anchor the entire process of citizenship determination within the Constitution. The Bench held that proceedings before Foreigners Tribunals cannot be viewed merely as statutory exercises under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Rather, they engage constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 because the consequences of being declared a foreigner directly affect a person’s liberty, dignity and legal status.

The Court laid particular emphasis on the language employed in the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to “any person”, while Article 21 provides that “no person” shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Neither provision confines its protection exclusively to Indian citizens.

Accordingly, the Bench held that constitutional safeguards extend even to individuals whose citizenship is itself under dispute.

“Article 14 of the Constitution uses the expression “any person”. Article 21 of the Constitution uses the expression “no person”. Neither provision is confined to citizens. The protection of equality before law, equal protection of laws, life and personal liberty is, therefore, available to every person within the territory of India. A person proceeded against before a Foreigners Tribunal may ultimately fail to establish Indian citizenship, but the process by which such determination is made must still satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.” (Para 20)

This distinction forms the constitutional foundation of the judgment. The Court clarified that while Parliament possesses the authority to regulate citizenship and the State is fully empowered to identify and remove illegal migrants, the procedure adopted for doing so cannot be arbitrary or unfair merely because the individual is ultimately found not to be an Indian citizen.

The judgment therefore separates the substantive outcome of citizenship determination from the fairness of the process by which that determination is reached, holding that constitutional protections govern the latter irrespective of the former.

Fair procedure survives even where the State seeks to identify foreigners

The Bench relied upon a long line of constitutional precedents to reinforce this principle. Referring to Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991), the Court reiterated that although foreigners do not enjoy the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, they nevertheless possess the protection of Article 21 in respect of life and personal liberty. Consequently, while the State may regulate the entry, residence and removal of foreigners, those actions must still conform to fair procedure.

The Court also relied upon National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), where the Supreme Court had rejected the argument that persons whose citizenship is disputed can be denied constitutional safeguards. That decision recognised that Article 21 continues to protect individuals even when their nationality remains under inquiry.

The Bench further invoked the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which transformed Article 21 by holding that “procedure established by law” must mean a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable, rather than arbitrary, oppressive or fanciful.

Applying this principle to proceedings before Foreigners Tribunals, the Court observed that the existence of a special burden of proof under Section 9 does not dilute constitutional requirements of procedural fairness. Simply because Parliament has shifted the evidentiary burden onto the proceedee does not authorise the Tribunal to disregard principles of fairness or natural justice.

Mechanical proceedings offend Articles 14 and 21

The Court’s reasoning extended beyond Article 21 to Article 14. The Bench observed that arbitrariness is fundamentally inconsistent with equality before law. Therefore, proceedings culminating in a declaration of foreigner status cannot survive constitutional scrutiny if they are conducted mechanically, one-sidedly or without genuine application of mind.

The Court explained that equal protection requires far more than formal compliance with statutory requirements. Merely issuing a notice or mechanically passing an order does not satisfy constitutional standards.

“Article 14 of the Constitution also upholds the content of fair procedure. A State action which is arbitrary cannot claim the protection of law merely because it is clothed in statutory form. A proceeding which may result in a person being declared a foreigner cannot be sustained if the procedure adopted is mechanical, one-sided, or devoid of application of mind. Equal protection of laws requires that the statutory procedure be applied in a real and meaningful manner. It is not enough that a notice is formally issued or that an order is formally passed. The Tribunal must examine whether the proceedee had a fair opportunity, whether the main grounds were disclosed, whether the evidence before it was capable of supporting the reference, and whether the conclusion follows from the material on record.” (Para 24)

Instead, the Tribunal must actively satisfy itself that:

• notice was properly served in accordance with law;
• the “main grounds” of the allegation were adequately disclosed;
• the proceedee had a genuine opportunity to respond;
• the evidence produced by the State is capable of supporting the allegation; and
• the conclusion logically follows from the material available on record.

The Court thus made clear that fairness is measured by the substance of the proceedings rather than their formal appearance.

Natural justice remains integral to Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

Another significant aspect of the judgment is its detailed reaffirmation of the principles of natural justice. The Bench observed that proceedings before Foreigners Tribunals carry consequences far more serious than ordinary civil disputes. A declaration that a person is a foreigner may result in detention, deportation, separation from family and community, loss of civil rights and, in certain situations, even statelessness. Because of these grave consequences, adherence to natural justice assumes exceptional importance.

“In proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal, this principle assumes particular importance. The person proceeded against is often required to establish facts relating to ancestry, residence, identity and family linkage through old public documents. Such a person cannot be expected to discharge the statutory burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act unless the main grounds of the allegation are disclosed and a meaningful opportunity is afforded to file a response and produce evidence. The opportunity contemplated by Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order must therefore be an effective opportunity, and not a merely formal one.” (Para 28)

The Court reiterated the foundational rule of audi alteram partem—that no person should be condemned unheard. Tracing the development of this doctrine through Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, the Bench observed that even where a statute is silent, fairness ordinarily requires that a person likely to be affected by an adverse decision be given an opportunity of hearing. The rule, the Court noted, is not merely technical but constitutes a fundamental principle of fair play.

The Court also relied upon A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, which recognised that principles of natural justice supplement statutory provisions rather than supplant them. Applying this principle, the Bench held that nothing in the Foreigners Act excludes natural justice. On the contrary, the procedural safeguards contained in Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order reinforce those principles by requiring meaningful notice, opportunity to respond, consideration of evidence and reasoned findings.

Similarly, relying on Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, the Court reiterated that notice constitutes the first and most essential limb of natural justice. A notice must precisely inform a person of the case they have to answer; vague allegations or undefined suspicions cannot satisfy this requirement.

The Court reinforces its earlier decision in Md. Rahim Ali

A substantial part of the judgment builds upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam (2024), which had already interpreted Section 9 of the Foreigners Act alongside Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order. Reaffirming that precedent, the Bench held that authorities cannot initiate proceedings on mere suspicion unsupported by material. Instead, the reference must disclose the “main grounds” underlying the allegation so that the proceedee understands the essential basis of the case.

“The Court explained that the burden under Section 9 is not to be understood as permitting the authorities to proceed on a bare allegation or an unsupported suspicion. The authority must possess some material basis for initiating the proceeding, and the proceedee must be informed of the substance of the case which he or she is required to meet.” (Para 17)

The Court drew an important distinction between a formal accusation and the statutory requirement of disclosing “main grounds”. The latter, it held, demands disclosure of the essential factual basis of the allegation rather than a vague assertion that an individual is suspected to be a foreigner. Without such disclosure, the opportunity to defend oneself becomes illusory, rendering the statutory burden under Section 9 practically impossible to discharge.

“The decision in Md. Rahim Ali (Supra) is important for another reason. This Court drew a clear distinction between the mere allegation that a person is a foreigner and the “main grounds” contemplated under Paragraph 3(1) of the 1964 Order. The expression “main grounds” requires something more than a formal accusation. It requires disclosure of the essential basis on which the allegation is founded, so that the proceedee is not left to answer an undefined suspicion. Without such disclosure, the opportunity to file a representation and produce evidence would be more illusory than real.” (Para 17)

The Bench reiterated another observation from Md. Rahim Ali: a declaration of foreigner status carries extraordinary civil consequences, including detention, deportation, and disruption of family life and the possibility of statelessness. Consequently, such declarations must always rest upon material capable of supporting the conclusion and must emerge from a process that satisfies constitutional standards of fairness.

Having established these constitutional and statutory principles, the Court proceeded to examine the three categories of appeals before it and explain why each required remand despite the differing factual circumstances.

“This Court in Md. Rahim Ali (Supra) also clarified that Section 9 does not exclude the principles of natural justice. The statutory burden placed upon the proceedee operates only after the proceeding is lawfully initiated and after the proceedee is placed in a position to understand the case against him or her. The burden cannot be shifted in a vacuum. A person cannot be expected to prove the negative without being told, with reasonable clarity, the material basis on which he or she is alleged to be a foreigner. The consequence of a declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal was also discussed by this Court as it was held that such a declaration is not a routine civil consequence. It may lead to detention, deportation, separation from family and community, and in a given case, even the possibility of statelessness. This Court therefore emphasised that the process by which such a declaration is made must satisfy the minimum requirements of fairness and must rest upon material capable of supporting the conclusion.” (Para 18)

Supreme Court identifies three categories of cases but applies a common constitutional standard

Having laid down the statutory and constitutional framework, the Supreme Court examined the 27 appeals before it by classifying them into three distinct categories. While the factual circumstances differed, the Court observed that the underlying concern remained identical in every case: whether a declaration of foreigner status carrying grave civil consequences could be sustained where the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal were either entirely ex-parte or had effectively become ex-parte without meaningful adjudication.

The Bench clarified that this classification was adopted only for analytical convenience. Regardless of whether the proceedee never appeared, appeared initially before defaulting, or whether the High Court later examined evidence in writ proceedings, every case ultimately raised the same constitutional question—whether the Tribunal had discharged its adjudicatory responsibility before declaring a person to be a foreigner.

Category I: Mere non-appearance cannot justify automatic declaration as a foreigner

The first category comprised cases where the appellants never appeared before the Foreigners Tribunal despite the Tribunal or the Gauhati High Court recording service of notice. The State argued that once notice had been served and the proceedee failed to participate, the Tribunal was entitled to proceed ex-parte and declare the individual a foreigner.

The Supreme Court agreed only in part.bThe Bench recognised that Paragraph 3(7) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 obligates a proceedee to appear before the Tribunal after due service of notice and that the Tribunal cannot indefinitely postpone proceedings merely because a person chooses not to participate. Accordingly, the Court held that Tribunals possess the statutory authority to proceed ex-parte where notices have been duly served.

However, the Court emphatically rejected the proposition that the power to proceed ex-parte automatically authorises a declaration of foreigner status. Reading Paragraph 3(7) together with Paragraphs 3(1), 3(10) and 3(16), the Bench held that even in the absence of the proceedee, the Tribunal continues to function as a quasi-judicial body and must independently discharge its adjudicatory responsibilities. It cannot simply endorse the police reference because the person failed to appear.

Instead, the Tribunal must still:

• verify whether notice was lawfully served;
• ensure that the “main grounds” of the allegation were communicated;
• consider the evidence produced by the Superintendent of Police;
• assess whether the material is capable of supporting the allegation that the proceedee is a foreigner; and
• record a reasoned opinion containing a concise statement of facts and conclusions.

The Court observed that Section 9 places the burden upon the proceedee, but that burden does not convert the absence of the proceedee into proof of the allegation. This distinction constitutes one of the judgment’s central legal holdings. Non-participation may deprive an individual of the opportunity to lead evidence, but it cannot relieve the Tribunal of its obligation to independently examine whether the State has established sufficient material to justify the declaration.

“Thus, even where the proceeding is ex parte, the Tribunal is still required to perform an adjudicatory function. The non-appearance of the proceedee may deprive him or her of the opportunity to lead evidence, but it does not relieve the Tribunal of the obligation to examine whether the reference is supported by the material produced by the State. Section 9 of the 1946 Act places the burden upon the proceedee, but that burden does not convert the absence of the proceedee into proof of the allegation. The Tribunal must still apply its mind to the main grounds, the proof of service, the evidence placed before it and the question referred.” (Para 32)

Finding that the appellants in this category had been declared foreigners without such meaningful adjudication, the Supreme Court held that the matters required fresh consideration before the respective Foreigners Tribunals. At the same time, it clarified that this opportunity was being granted only once and subject to stringent conditions to prevent delay or abuse of process.

“The matters falling in this category show that the appellants have been declared foreigners without any contest on their behalf before the Tribunal. Having regard to the grave consequences of such declaration, and having regard to the statutory requirement that even the final order of the Tribunal must contain a concise statement of facts and conclusion, we are of the view that these matters deserve to be remitted to the concerned Tribunals for fresh consideration. This opportunity shall be granted only once and shall remain subject to strict conditions so that the remand is not used to delay the proceedings.” (Para 33)

Category II: High Courts cannot become the primary forum for deciding citizenship facts

The second category dealt with cases in which the Gauhati High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, undertook its own appreciation of documentary evidence—including electoral rolls, family lineage documents and other citizenship records—to uphold ex-parte declarations passed by the Tribunals.

The Supreme Court held that this approach fundamentally misconceived the statutory framework governing Foreigners Tribunals. The Bench observed that Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order clearly designates the Tribunal as the primary fact-finding authority. It is before the Tribunal that the proceedee must produce documents, the State must lead evidence and disputed questions concerning ancestry, identity, electoral records, residence and family linkage must be examined.

Nationality disputes often involve complex factual inquiries requiring scrutiny of decades-old public records, oral testimony, linkage evidence and documentary proof. Such evidence may require explanation, comparison, corroboration and rebuttal. These exercises, the Court held, fall squarely within the statutory jurisdiction of the Foreigners Tribunal rather than the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Accordingly, where the Tribunal itself has failed to undertake a complete adjudication because proceedings became ex-parte, the deficiency cannot ordinarily be cured by the High Court appreciating evidence for the first time.

“In matters concerning nationality, the evidence often relates to ancestry, family linkage, residence, identity, electoral records and other public documents. Such material may require proof, explanation, comparison, and where necessary, rebuttal. The burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act is also to be discharged before the Tribunal. The State evidence is likewise to be placed before and considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, where the proceeding before the Tribunal was ex parte and the documents relied upon by the proceedee were not tested before the statutory forum, the High Court should not ordinarily become the first forum for appreciation of such material.” (Para 37)

The Bench therefore ruled that factual examination undertaken directly by the High Court cannot substitute the adjudicatory process contemplated by the Foreigners Act and the 1964 Order. The proper course in such circumstances is to remit the matter to the Tribunal so that both parties may lead evidence before the designated statutory forum and obtain a fresh, reasoned opinion.

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed an important principle governing judicial review: while High Courts possess wide constitutional powers under Article 226, they ordinarily should not become the first forum to evaluate disputed evidence where the legislature has created a specialised adjudicatory mechanism for that purpose.

“In the matters falling in this category, the High Court examined the documents and material placed before it while declining interference with the ex parte opinion of the Tribunal. Such an exercise, in the facts of the present batch, cannot cure the absence of a proper adjudication before the Tribunal under Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order. The appropriate course is to remit these matters to the concerned Tribunals, so that the appellants may produce their material, the State may adduce its evidence, and the Tribunal may return a fresh opinion in accordance with law.” (Para 38)

Category III: Default after participation does not absolve the Tribunal of its duties

The third category comprised appeals where the appellants had initially participated in the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal—by entering appearance, filing written statements, seeking adjournments or appearing through counsel—but later defaulted, resulting in ex-parte opinions.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that these cases stood on a somewhat different footing from the first category because the appellants had knowledge of the proceedings and had, at least initially, availed themselves of the opportunity provided under the statute. The Bench accepted that Paragraph 3(7) obligates a proceedee to remain present throughout the proceedings, while Paragraph 3(12) expressly provides that adjournments should be granted sparingly and only for recorded reasons.

Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot be faulted merely because it refused repeated adjournments or proceeded with the matter after the proceedee repeatedly remained absent. The Court emphasised that individuals cannot frustrate the adjudicatory process through deliberate or negligent non-participation, particularly because Section 9 places the burden of proving citizenship upon them.

Nevertheless, the Bench held that the proceedee’s default does not alter the legal character of the Tribunal’s function. Even where proceedings become effectively ex-parte after initial participation, the Tribunal remains bound by Paragraphs 3(15) and 3(16) of the 1964 Order. Its final opinion must continue to reflect independent application of mind to the issues referred, consideration of the State’s evidence and evaluation of whatever material has already been placed on record by the proceedee.

The Court observed that many appellants in this category had been declared foreigners before the evidence they sought to rely upon was fully considered by the statutory forum. Given the severe consequences attached to such declarations, the Bench held that these matters too required fresh adjudication so that citizenship could be determined after a complete evidentiary inquiry.

‘In the matters falling in this category, the proceedings had become effectively ex parte at the stage when the appellants were required to continue their defence or adduce evidence. The consequence is that the declarations against them were made without a complete adjudication on the material which they seek to place before the statutory forum. In view of the serious consequences which follow such declarations, and in order to ensure that the determination of status is made after a complete and reasoned adjudication, we consider it appropriate to remit these matters also to the concerned Tribunals.” (Para 43)

At the same time, the Court cautioned that the remand should not be interpreted as condoning the conduct of the appellants. It described the opportunity as one final chance, requiring the individuals to appear before the Tribunal, file their written statements and documents within the prescribed time and cooperate fully with the proceedings. Failure to do so would entitle the Tribunal to proceed in accordance with law.

“This remand is not to be understood as approval of the conduct of the appellants in defaulting before the Tribunal. It is granted only as one final opportunity, keeping in view the nature of the determination and the consequences which may follow. The appellants in this category shall therefore be required to appear before the concerned Tribunals, file their written statements and documents within the time granted, and cooperate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. If they fail to do so, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.” (Para 44)

By adopting this balanced approach, the Supreme Court ensured that procedural fairness was preserved without permitting repeated defaults to obstruct the statutory process of citizenship determination.

Court stops short of deciding citizenship claims, orders fresh adjudication

While allowing all 27 appeals, the Supreme Court was careful to define the limited scope of its intervention. The Bench repeatedly clarified that it was not adjudicating upon the citizenship claims of any of the appellants, nor was it expressing any opinion regarding the authenticity, admissibility, relevance or evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by them. Those questions, the Court held, must be independently decided by the concerned Foreigners Tribunals after a fresh evaluation of the evidence placed by both sides.

The judgment therefore does not confer citizenship upon any of the appellants, nor does it weaken the statutory framework governing the identification of foreigners. Instead, it reinforces that the legitimacy of the outcome depends upon the legitimacy of the process by which that outcome is reached.

The Court recognised that Parliament, under Article 11 of the Constitution, possesses the legislative authority to regulate citizenship, while the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 establish the statutory mechanism for determining whether an individual is or is not a foreigner. It also acknowledged the State’s legitimate interest in ensuring that persons who are not entitled to Indian citizenship do not obtain such status through false claims, procedural abuse or delay.

At the same time, the Bench emphasised that this sovereign interest cannot justify compromising procedural fairness. Reiterating the central principle running throughout the judgment, the Court held that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must always emerge from “a process which is fair, lawful and reasoned.” It clarified that the statutory burden under Section 9 remains fully applicable and that the remand does not dilute or shift that burden in favour of the appellants. Rather, it ensures that the serious consequences of a declaration as a foreigner follow only after an adjudication consistent with the Foreigners Act, the 1964 Order and the constitutional mandate of fairness under Articles 14 and 21.

“Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance. Article 11 of the Constitution preserves the power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. Separately, the 1946 Act and the 1964 Order provide the statutory mechanism through which questions as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner are referred to and determined by the Tribunal. The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship do not secure such status by misuse of process, by false claims, or by taking advantage of procedural delays.” (Para 46)

“At the same time, the determination of such status must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and reasoned. The statutory burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act remains fully applicable. The remand being directed by this Court is not intended to dilute that burden, nor is it intended to confer any equity in favour of a person who is unable to establish his or her claim in accordance with law. It is only to ensure that the serious consequence of being declared a foreigner follows from an adjudication which satisfies the requirements of the 1946 Act, the 1964 Order, and the constitutional mandate of fairness.” (Para 47)

Gauhati High Court and Tribunal orders set aside

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court set aside all the impugned judgments of the Gauhati High Court affirming the declarations of the appellants as foreigners. Consequently, the corresponding opinions rendered by the concerned Foreigners Tribunals, as well as the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals in certain older matters, were also quashed. The Bench directed that every reference be adjudicated afresh by the competent Foreigners Tribunal, independently and without being influenced either by the earlier Tribunal opinions or by the findings recorded by the Gauhati High Court.

The Court thereby restored the statutory Tribunal to its role as the primary fact-finding authority in nationality disputes, reaffirming that factual questions relating to ancestry, electoral records, family linkage and documentary evidence must first be examined by the specialised forum created under the law.

Strict conditions attached to the remand

The Supreme Court was equally careful to ensure that its judgment was not interpreted as rewarding procedural default. Recognising that many of the appellants had either failed to appear before the Tribunals or had discontinued participation midway through the proceedings, the Bench imposed a series of stringent conditions while remanding the matters.

The appellants were directed to appear before the respective Foreigners Tribunals within four weeks from the date of the judgment. Upon their appearance, the Tribunals were instructed to permit them to file written statements, affidavits and documentary evidence within a reasonable period to be fixed by the Tribunal. However, extensions of time were to be granted only upon sufficient cause recorded in writing.

The State and the concerned reference authorities were likewise granted liberty to produce additional material and lead evidence in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Tribunals were directed to evaluate the evidence produced by both sides before rendering fresh opinions under the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order.

The Bench further directed the appellants to cooperate fully with the proceedings and specifically restrained them from seeking unnecessary adjournments. Should any appellant fail to appear within the stipulated period, or, having appeared, fail to participate meaningfully, the Tribunal would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Interim protection from coercive action

Recognising the serious consequences that flow from declarations of foreigner status, the Supreme Court granted limited interim protection to the appellants pending fresh adjudication.

The Court directed that no coercive steps, including detention or deportation based on the earlier Tribunal opinions, should be taken against the appellants until fresh opinions are rendered by the concerned Tribunals.

This protection, however, was expressly made conditional upon the appellants appearing before the Tribunals within the stipulated time and cooperating with the proceedings. If they defaulted once again, the protection would cease, leaving the Tribunal free to proceed in accordance with law.

To avoid prolonged uncertainty, the Bench also requested the Foreigners Tribunals to dispose of the remanded references expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date on which the appellants first appear pursuant to the judgment.

A significant reaffirmation of procedural safeguards

The judgment represents one of the Supreme Court’s clearest articulations of the constitutional limits governing citizenship determination. While preserving the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the Court has made it equally clear that this burden cannot transform Foreigners Tribunal proceedings into a mechanical exercise or permit declarations based solely on non-appearance or unsupported allegations.

By harmonising the Foreigners Act with the procedural safeguards embedded in the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and the guarantees of equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21, the Bench reaffirmed that fair procedure is not contingent upon citizenship. Even where an individual ultimately fails to establish Indian citizenship, the determination must emerge from a meaningful adjudication marked by adequate notice, disclosure of the grounds of allegation, independent scrutiny of evidence and reasoned findings.

The ruling also reinforces the institutional role of Foreigners Tribunals as the primary adjudicatory forums for citizenship disputes, cautioning High Courts against becoming the first forum for factual appreciation of documentary evidence in writ proceedings. At the same time, it balances individual rights with the State’s sovereign authority to regulate citizenship by reiterating that the remand neither weakens the burden under Section 9 nor creates any presumption in favour of the appellants.

In doing so, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a foundational constitutional principle: the State’s power to determine citizenship must be exercised through procedures that are fair, lawful and reasoned, because the legitimacy of the outcome depends as much upon the integrity of the process as upon the correctness of the final decision.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

SC remands 27 citizenship cases, reaffirms constitutional fairness

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

Abdul Sheikh Citizenship Case: Gauhati High Court issues notice, continues protection against deportation

“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

The post SC: Reasoned & Fair adjudication by Foreigners Tribunals, a must for proving citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The newly inserted section, described as a “declaration form”, requires applicants to state whether either of their parents was included in the last SIR. If the answer is yes, the applicant must provide the Assembly Constituency number, the polling station (Part Number) and the Serial Number under which the parent appeared in the last SIR. If the parents were not included, the applicant is required to provide their names and, wherever available, their Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers.

The introduction of this declaration changes the information sought from first-time applicants. However, the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 has not been amended through any publicly available Gazette notification to incorporate this additional requirement.

The existing offline declaration form may be accessed from here:

Form 6 is a statutory form governed by the Registration of Electors Rules

Form 6 is the statutory application prescribed for inclusion of a person’s name in the electoral roll. It derives its legal authority from the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Article 326 of the Constitution guarantees registration as an elector to every adult citizen who is ordinarily resident in a constituency, subject only to the disqualifications provided by law.

Since Form 6 forms part of the Registration of Electors Rules, its contents are governed by delegated legislation rather than administrative practice. Under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Central Government may frame or amend the Rules only after consultation with the Election Commission, and such amendments must be notified in the Official Gazette and laid before Parliament.

The existing offline Form 6 may be accessed from here

Whenever statutory electoral forms have been modified in the past, those changes have been carried out by amending the Registration of Electors Rules through Gazette notifications issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice. The legal requirement assumes significance because the additional parental declaration presently appears only during online submission through ECINET. The downloadable Form 6 available for offline submission continues to reflect the notified statutory format and does not contain this declaration.

The result is that the online and offline versions of Form 6 no longer correspond with each other, raising the question of whether a substantive addition to a statutory form can be introduced through the online portal without a corresponding amendment to the Rules.

The 2022 amendments illustrate how changes to statutory forms were previously made

The present position is markedly different from the process followed in 2022 when the electoral registration forms were comprehensively revised.

The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 amended several provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Pursuant to those amendments, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules, 2022 through a Gazette Notification dated June 17, 2022, and the revised Rules came into force on August 1, 2022.

The amended notification can be accessed from here

Those amendments substantially reorganised the electoral registration framework. Form 6 ceased to be a composite application and became a form meant exclusively for registration of a new elector. Applications relating to shifting of residence from one Assembly constituency to another were transferred to Form 8, whose scope was expanded to include correction of entries, change of residence within or across constituencies, replacement of EPIC cards and recording of disability status. Consequently, Form 8A, which earlier dealt with transposition of entries within the same constituency, and Form 001, relating to replacement of EPIC cards, were both discontinued.

The amendments also introduced Form 6B for furnishing Aadhaar details by existing electors. Importantly, this change was accompanied by amendments to the statutory Rules and a separately prescribed form. The framework also expressly provided that furnishing Aadhaar was voluntary and that non-submission would not result in denial of registration or deletion from the electoral roll.

The significance of the 2022 exercise lies in the legal process that accompanied it. Every change to the statutory forms was preceded by amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules and brought into force through Gazette notification. By contrast, the parental declaration now appearing in the online Form 6 does not appear to be supported by any corresponding amendment to the statutory Rules that has been placed in the public domain.

The modified Form 6 raises questions beyond the parental declaration

The issues surrounding the modified Form 6 extend beyond the newly introduced parental declaration. They also affect electors whose names have been deleted during the Special Intensive Revision.

The Election Commission has stated that electors whose names were deleted during the SIR may seek re-enrolment by filing Form 6 during the claims and objections process. This instruction raises an important legal question because, following the amendments that came into force on August 1, 2022, Form 6 is prescribed exclusively for the registration of a new elector.

The declaration contained in Form 6 requires every applicant to state that he or she has not been previously included in any electoral roll. A person seeking restoration after deletion during the SIR cannot truthfully make such a declaration because the very basis of the application is that the person was already enrolled and was subsequently removed from the electoral roll.

The statutory declaration and the process of re-enrolment therefore appear difficult to reconcile. The issue assumes greater significance because the declaration itself warns that furnishing false information or making an incorrect declaration constitutes an offence under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. No public clarification has been issued explaining how deleted electors are expected to comply with this statutory declaration while applying for re-enrolment.

The parental declaration inserted into the online Form 6 gives rise to another set of practical questions. Young applicants may not know the Assembly constituency, Part Number or Serial Number under which their parents were enrolled during the previous SIR. The position becomes even more complicated where parents have shifted residence over the years, where they were themselves deleted during the SIR, or where proceedings challenging those deletions are still pending. The Election Commission has not clarified whether inability to furnish these particulars would affect the processing of an application or whether the declaration is intended only for record purposes.

The absence of category-wise disclosures leaves important questions unanswered

The concerns arising from Form 6 are part of a broader issue relating to the transparency of the Special Intensive Revision itself.

While the Election Commission has released aggregate figures relating to additions and deletions, it has not published category-wise information that would enable independent reconciliation of the final electoral rolls.

For instance, although the Commission has announced the number of newly added electors, it has not disclosed the categories under which these electors were added or the districts and Assembly constituencies where these additions have taken place. Without such information, it is difficult to independently assess how the additions have affected constituency-wise electoral rolls.

Similar questions arise in relation to Form 6A, which governs the enrolment of overseas electors. No constituency-wise or district-wise data has been published indicating where such electors have been added following the SIR.

The same absence of detailed disclosure extends to Form 7, which is used for objections and deletion of names from the electoral roll. While overall deletion figures have been released, there is no publicly available information identifying the constituencies where these deletions occurred or the categories under which they were sustained after verification.

Likewise, no detailed constituency-wise information has been published regarding Form 8, which deals with correction of entries and shifting of residence. It remains unclear how many electors were shifted between constituencies, how many merely corrected their particulars, and what impact these changes had on the final electoral rolls.

Without category-wise disclosures relating to Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8, it is difficult to reconcile additions, deletions, corrections and transfers reflected during the SIR. It also remains unclear whether there is any overlap between these categories or how the aggregate figures released by the Commission translate into the final constituency-wise electoral rolls.

Taken together, these issues raise questions not only about the introduction of the parental declaration in the online Form 6 but also about the manner in which changes affecting statutory electoral forms have been implemented during the SIR. The absence of a publicly notified amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, the use of Form 6 for re-enrolment despite its post-2022 structure, and the limited category-wise disclosure of additions and deletions leave several aspects of the exercise without a clear statutory or administrative explanation.

Related:

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast

The post EC’s new online Form 6 requirement raises questions over procedure and legality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To facilitate the issuance of the Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) required for proving citizenship under the SIR process, the Congress government in Karnataka recently issued an order simplifying the rules. The order, however, came late and was also made in haste.

Even before the Election Commission had an opportunity to express any opinion on the matter, Shobha and her brigade began raising objections to the PRC that are not only baseless and ridiculous but also dangerous.

The full text of the complaint may be accessed here:

The Constitution of India guarantees One Nation, One Citizenship. No State Government can create a parallel mechanism that undermines this constitutional principle.

The Karnataka Congress Government’s Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) notification raises serious… pic.twitter.com/essRFW0GES

— Shobha Karandlaje (@ShobhaBJP) July 10, 2026

The essence of Shobha’s allegations is as follows:

1. The Karnataka government is unconstitutionally creating a new category called “Permanent Residents” as an alternative to “Indian citizenship.” Through this, even those who are not citizens of India are allegedly being enabled to acquire citizenship.
2. Permanent Residence Certificates should not be issued to non-citizens. Therefore, the Union government must direct that such certificates be issued only to those whose Indian citizenship has already been established.
3. Until the constitutional validity and legal status of Karnataka’s Permanent Residence Certificate are decided, the issuance of these certificates should be prohibited.

At first glance, the complaint contains neither logic nor patriotism. Not even the slightest concern for the public interest is visible. Instead, it reflects nothing more than the mind-set of, “Even if one eye is lost, it is worth it so long as the person hated loses both eyes,” driven entirely by malice and hatred.

The first question, therefore, is whether these allegations contain any substance.

Shobhaji and  BJP:

Isn’t the Permanent Residence Certificate itself meant to establish citizenship?

Being members of the BJP and the RSS, familiarity with logic, law, and the Constitution has naturally remained limited. Even more disturbing is that administration officials and advisers to the Opposition INC government, who were expected to provide sound legal guidance after assuming office appear to have become just as fallacious as the BJP itself. The complaint speaks for itself.

The argument insists that a Permanent Residence Certificate should be issued only after Indian citizenship has already been proven. But, Shobhaji, does any single document exist in India that conclusively certifies someone as an Indian citizen? As a Union Minister, you should perhaps ask  the Prime Minister this question.

After all, the government has already declared that even a passport—once regarded as proof of citizenship—is merely a travel document, no different in principle from a bus ticket. If that is the position even for those who possess passports, how are the overwhelming majority of poor and oppressed Hindus expected to prove their citizenship, Shobhaji?

When that is the reality, what colonial-era documents, prescribed by you , the actual Aryan migrants who now claim authority, are this country’s indigenous people expected to produce beyond evidence that they have lived in India for decades?

Does your ilk have slightest understanding of the lives of Hindu daily-wage labourers, Hindu agricultural workers, Hindu Devadasis, Hindu transgender persons, or Hindu migrant workers? We know there already that is nothing Bharatiya (patriotic) about the Bharatiya Janata Party. But Nor is this a party representing Hindus as a whole. Through this very allegation, proof has once again been furnished that it represents nothing more than the Brahminical interests of the privileged classes of the Savarna Hindus.

When the government itself does not issue any definitive document establishing citizenship, how can it be argued that even a Permanent Residence Certificate—often obtained by ordinary people only after immense hardship—should be rejected unless citizenship has already been proven? Isn’t that the height of absurdity, sophistry, and cruelty?

PRC: A Provision Made Available by the Election Commission Itself

Shobhaji,

The SIR process is, in fact, intended to verify people’s citizenship. The body conducting that exercise is none other than the Central Election Commission, which functions as an instrument of your government.

It is your own Central Election Commission that has declared, as part of its rules, that submission of any one of the following documents is sufficient to establish a person’s status as a voter and, by extension, as a citizen.

The list of documents is as follows:

1. Identity card or pension order issued to regular employees by any Central or State government or government undertaking.
2. Any document, identity card, or certificate issued in India before  July 1, 1987 by governments, local authorities, post offices, the Life Insurance Corporation, or banks.
3. Birth certificate issued by the competent authority.
4. Passport.
5. SSLC certificate or any other recognized educational certificate issued by an authorized educational authority or university.
6. Permanent Residence Certificate issued by the competent State authority.
7. Forest Rights Certificate.
8. Any caste certificate issued by the competent authority.
9. NRC records, wherever an NRC has been conducted. (At present, this applies only to Assam.)
10. Family records prepared by State governments or local authorities.
11. Any government-issued land or house records.
12. Aadhaar Card. However the Supreme Court has indirectly legitimised the indirect rejection of Aadhar card in its May 27 judgement. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Election Commission of India (@ecisveep)

Now pay attention to Item 6:

Permanent Residence Certificate issued by Competent State Authority.

That means:

1. A Permanent Residence Certificate is one of the accepted documents for establishing citizenship; and
2. It is issued by the competent authority of the State government, not by the Union government. Nor is it issued after citizenship has already been established. On the contrary, the BJP-controlled, Supreme Court-approved Election Commission has explicitly stated that State governments may issue this document for the very purpose of enabling people to establish their citizenship.

Therefore, this is not some new mechanism invented by the Congress government in Karnataka.

(The DK Shivakumar government has certainly displayed delay and inertia in implementing this process. That raises a separate question as to whether the document will ultimately reach those who genuinely lack it. But that is an entirely different issue.)

That is why the allegation that the Permanent Residence Certificate is a “conspiracy to confer citizenship upon non-citizens” is itself malicious. If genuine commitment exists behind this accusation, then opposition should be directed against those who accepted this provision in the first place—the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, in other words, your own government—and against the Central Election Commission that functions at your behest.

Nor is the Permanent Residence Certificate the only State-issued document included in this list. The Commission has also recognized five other documents that are issued by State governments:

1. Identity documents for State government employees.
2. SSLC and other recognized educational certificates issued by authorized educational institutions or universities.
3. Caste certificates issued by the competent authority.
4. Family records prepared by State governments or local authorities.
5. Government-issued land or house records.

Are all these documents not issued by State governments? Hasn’t the Central Election Commission itself recognized them as valid documents? Then how can these documents suddenly become alternatives or substitutes for Indian citizenship?

If that is indeed the argument, were these very documents withheld from poor and oppressed Hindu communities in BJP-ruled States wherever the SIR process was conducted?

For that reason, the allegations made by Shobha and the BJP against the PRC are devoid of substance. They are absurd and built entirely on sophistry.

More importantly, they are dangerous.

The very same line of argument was deployed by the BJP in West Bengal, where it was used as a strategy to deny documentation—particularly to Muslims—and thereby push them out of the electoral rolls. As though waiting for precisely such a pretext, the Election Commission accepted the BJP’s allegations almost in their entirety.

ECI Orders That Curtailed West Bengal’s People-Friendly PRC

When the ECI  initiated the controversial SIR exercise in Bihar through the TMC government in West Bengal anticipated its implications. In July 2025, it issued an order simplifying the process of issuing Domicile Certificates so that residents of West Bengal could obtain the document without being subjected to unnecessary harassment.

However, once the SIR process commenced in West Bengal and district authorities began issuing Domicile Certificates, the BJP in the state demanded that under no circumstances should Domicile Certificates (PRCs) issued after July 2025 be accepted.

The Election Commission promptly accepted that demand. It began separately classifying and rejecting PRCs issued after July 2025.

A detailed report on the matter is available here:

The Central Election Commission subsequently went a step further. Not only did it reject Domicile Certificates altogether, it also issued fresh notices even to those who had previously been issued such certificates. It was only after the Mamata Banerjee government launched a massive public campaign across West Bengal in protest that the Election Commission agreed to accept the document once again—but only after imposing several stringent conditions.

The full text can be accessed here:

The Government Order dated November 2, 1999 relating to Domicile Certificates in West Bengal is available here:

That order makes it clear that eligibility for obtaining a Domicile Certificate is restricted. It also mandates that, in addition to documentary requirements, every applicant’s citizenship and police verification must be completed.

In its final order dated February 8, the Election Commission stipulated that:

1. A West Bengal Domicile Certificate must conform strictly to the Government Order dated November 2, 1999.
2. It must be issued only by the competent authority.
3. An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) may recognize the certificate only after being satisfied that every prescribed procedure has been duly followed.

Responsibility for this verification was assigned to Micro Observers.

In other words, the Election Commission refused to recognize the simplified procedure introduced by the West Bengal government or the certificates issued under that simplified framework.

A similar situation is now unfolding in Karnataka. The DK Shivakumar government has simplified the rules governing the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificates, and the BJP has begun the very same campaign of misinformation that was witnessed in West Bengal.

Karnataka’s PRC Is People-Friendly—But Will the Election Commission Accept It?

Under Karnataka’s newly issued PRC guidelines, eligibility for Permanent Residence is based on criteria such as a minimum of ten years’ residence in Karnataka, ten years of schooling in the state, ownership of immovable property, and similar qualifications. To establish these requirements, the rules provide that documents such as an Aadhaar card, ration card, Revenue Department records, electoral rolls, and similar records are sufficient.

The guidelines go further. Officials conducting verification are permitted to undertake local inquiries and obtain reports from Village Accountants. Oral testimony has also been recognized as a form of evidence.

Most importantly, the new rules explicitly state that an application must not be rejected merely because a particular document is unavailable. They also require authorities to provide written reasons for any rejection, thereby strengthening official accountability while making the process significantly more inclusive.

There can therefore be little doubt that these new rules are more people-friendly than the previous framework.

The real question, however, is whether a Permanent Residence Certificate obtained through such a simplified and inclusive process will be accepted as a valid document under an SIR exercise that has been designed precisely to exclude as many people as possible.

Furthermore, while framing these new rules, the Karnataka government has implicitly indicated that the amendments were introduced specifically and exclusively to address the requirements of the SIR process. Consequently, although Karnataka’s revised PRC rules may be more citizen-friendly than before, it is doubtful whether they will be Election Commission-friendly or ultimately accepted for SIR purposes.

The Election Commission is under no obligation to accept amendments introduced by the Karnataka government. Just as it did in West Bengal, it may reject them altogether or impose its own conditions, leaving the final decision to the discretion of its own officials and thereby making the process even more stringent.

Indeed, Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer has already declined to make any commitment regarding the validity of the state’s revised PRC rules, maintaining that no definitive position can yet be taken.

Is Congress Prepared to Relinquish Power and Confront the Election Commission?

There may be another strategy at work behind all this.

In Karnataka, the first draft of the electoral roll is scheduled to be published on August 5. Thereafter, objections may be filed and supporting documents submitted until September 5. But what happens if, after August 5, the Chief Electoral Officer declares that PRC documents will not be accepted? Will voters who relied on those assurances—farmers, agricultural labourers, daily-wage workers, and other ordinary citizens—be able to assemble an entirely new set of documents within a month? Is the Election Commission’s studied silence, then, part of a deliberate strategy to maximize exclusion from the electoral rolls?

If that is indeed the case, will the Congress government and the Congress party launch a constitutional confrontation against the Election Commission? Will they be prepared to declare non-cooperation with the Commission in order to protect the people and the Republic, even at the cost of losing power? Will they create a constitutional crisis if necessary and wage a political battle to defend the Constitution?

Or will they simply continue publicizing their own people-friendly initiative while, in substance, leaving the PRC incapable of protecting the very people it was meant to serve, thereby allowing the BJP’s agenda to prevail?

The Congress party’s conduct in other states where the SIR process has already been completed does not leave much room for uncertainty about the answer.

Without Repealing the SIR, the Oppressed Cannot Be Protected

The Modi government and the Election Commission are conducting the SIR exercise with the determined objective of removing as many people as possible from the electoral rolls on one pretext or another. Even if only a minor procedural lapse is found in the issuance of a Domicile Certificate, the Commission can simply declare another “discrepancy” and invalidate the document.

That is because the Supreme Court has already held that the Election Commission possesses the authority to frame such rules within the SIR process.

For that reason, Karnataka’s Muslims, Dalit and other oppressed communities cannot be shielded from the BJP–RSS–Election Commission’s SIR offensive merely through the Congress government’s half-hearted PRC initiative.

That is precisely why democracy itself cannot survive unless the SIR process is repealed.

And even after the present SIR exercise concludes, another sustained people’s movement will be necessary—not only to secure the inclusion of those who have been excluded from the electoral rolls, but also to ensure that the SIR process itself is ultimately repealed.

[1] Minister of State for Labour & Employment and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) in the Government of India. A senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, she currently serves as the Member of Parliament for the Bangalore North constituency

[2] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/not-23-hindu-deaths-only-nine-congress-tells-bjp/article22515602.ece

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

SIR 2025-2026: A backdoor exercise to bring in the NRC?

Karnataka’s new PRC rules are people-friendly, but will the ECI accept them?

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

The post PRC, SIR and a BJP Hawk Shobha Karandlaje! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian Constitution was never conceived merely as a framework for governing an independent nation. Constitutional historian Granville Austin famously described it as an instrument of a “social revolution”; a document intended to transform Indian society by replacing entrenched hierarchies with the principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. This distinction lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the place of ancient Indian texts such as the Manusmriti in legal education.

Socio-political critic and columnist Solomon Mubash argues in his recent essay, From Constitutional Morality to Brahmanical Logic: Judicial Violence and Power, that the controversy extends far beyond curriculum design or the study of history. Instead, he contends that it reflects a deeper contest over the moral and ideological foundations of the Indian republic. Whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his argument, the questions he raises extend far beyond the classroom.

At stake is not whether students should read the Manusmriti. Any serious student of law, history, religion or sociology must engage with texts that have shaped the intellectual traditions of the subcontinent. The real question is how such texts should be situated within a constitutional democracy founded on equal citizenship.

History and heritage are not the same thing.

History seeks to understand the past—its achievements as well as its contradictions. Heritage often seeks to celebrate it. Confusing the two risks turning scholarly inquiry into cultural endorsement. Ancient texts deserve academic engagement because they reveal how societies understood law, authority and social order. They do not automatically acquire normative authority simply because they are old.

The Manusmriti occupies a distinctive and contested place in India’s intellectual history. As Indologist Patrick Olivelle, whose translation remains among the most authoritative, notes, it is one of the most influential Dharmashastra texts prescribing norms of social and legal conduct. Historians have also pointed out that while its actual legal authority varied across regions and historical periods, its prescriptions articulated a social order organised around hereditary hierarchy.

The text differentiates duties, privileges and punishments according to caste and gender. Women, Shudras and those placed outside the varna order occupy unequal positions within its normative framework. Scholars including B.R. Ambedkar, Nicholas Dirks and Christophe Jaffrelot have therefore interpreted the Manusmriti as a powerful symbol of graded social inequality, even while recognising that lived social practises were often more complex than any single text could capture.

Recognising this historical reality is not an act of hostility towards Indian civilisation. It is an acknowledgement that every civilisation contains traditions worthy of preservation alongside institutions that deserve critical scrutiny.

It is precisely this distinction that informed Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s understanding of constitutional morality. In his final address to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Ambedkar warned that political democracy could not survive unless it rested upon social democracy founded on liberty, equality and fraternity. He cautioned that India was entering “a life of contradictions”, where political equality would coexist with deep social and economic inequality unless constitutional values transformed society itself.

For Ambedkar, constitutional morality was therefore not blind allegiance to a legal document. It was a civic ethic that required citizens and institutions to judge inherited customs against constitutional principles rather than treating tradition as the ultimate source of legitimacy.

His public burning of the Manusmriti during the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 has generally been understood by historians as a symbolic rejection of scriptural sanction for caste hierarchy—not a rejection of Indian civilisation itself. His later leadership of the Constitution’s Drafting Committee represented an attempt to replace birth-based status with equal constitutional citizenship.

That constitutional commitment found concrete expression in Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on specified grounds and abolish untouchability. A Dalit labourer, a Brahmin scholar, an Adivasi woman and a member of a religious minority stand equal before the law not because tradition confers equal worth upon them, but because the Constitution does.

That was the revolutionary promise of the Republic.

Mubash argues that a continuing tension exists between constitutional morality and what he describes as Brahmanical social logic. Regardless of whether one adopts that terminology, the broader constitutional question remains relevant. The tension between constitutional ideals and entrenched social hierarchies continues to surface whenever caste-based discrimination is defended in the language of tradition, women’s autonomy is subordinated to customary norms, or inherited privilege seeks legitimacy through appeals to civilisational continuity rather than constitutional principle.

The danger lies in confusing antiquity with authority. No constitutional democracy derives its legitimacy from the age of its ideas. Its legitimacy derives from the justice of its institutions.

Constitutional morality asks a different question from historical tradition. It asks not whether a practice is ancient but whether it is just; not whether it is customary but whether it respects the equal dignity of every citizen. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this principle in decisions such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), holding that constitutional morality must prevail where social morality infringes fundamental rights.

Yet the constitutional transformation envisioned by Ambedkar remains incomplete. Ambedkar himself distinguished between political democracy and social democracy, warning that the former could not endure without the latter. More than seven decades after Independence, the continued incidence of caste-based atrocities, manual scavenging, honour killings and structural exclusion—documented in reports of the National Crime Records Bureau, the National Human Rights Commission and successive government agencies—demonstrates that constitutional equality has not fully displaced social hierarchy.

The response to this challenge cannot be historical amnesia. Ancient texts should be read, debated and critically examined. But they must be approached as historical artefacts rather than constitutional guides. Legal education should encourage students not only to understand what such texts prescribed but also to examine who benefited from those prescriptions, who was excluded by them, and why independent India consciously chose a different constitutional path.

Every civilisation possesses traditions worth preserving. Every intellectual tradition contains ideas worthy of study. But no tradition becomes immune from criticism merely because it is ancient.

The Constitution occupies a unique place in India’s public life because it represents a conscious normative departure from systems that assign human worth by birth. As Granville Austin argued, it sought to facilitate a peaceful social revolution through democratic institutions rather than through coercion. It is therefore not merely a legal document but an aspirational framework for building a society in which liberty is not restricted by caste, equality is not constrained by status and fraternity is not defeated by inherited divisions.

The Constitution is not a mirror reflecting India as it was. It is a blueprint imagining India as it could be, and ought to be.

The real challenge before Indian institutions is not that they have forgotten their roots. It is that they sometimes forget the purpose of the constitutional project itself. That project was never about recovering an idealised past. It was about constructing a more equal future.

The future of Indian democracy will not ultimately be determined by how frequently it invokes its civilisational inheritance. It will depend on whether its institutions continue to uphold the constitutional vision articulated by Ambedkar, embedded in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. India’s civilisational inheritance deserves careful study. Its Constitution deserves primacy. The Constitution is not the antithesis of Indian civilisation; it is arguably the Republic’s most profound civilisational achievement.

Oindrila Dasgupta is a doctoral researcher at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and teaches Social Inclusion and Journalism. Her work focuses on role of journalism in terms of social justice praxis and pedagogy in India.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Beyond the Manusmriti Debate: Why Constitutional Morality Must Remain India’s North Star appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statements were issued hours after the Assam Police detained Doley in Guwahati on July 12 in connection with a criminal case registered at Bokakhat Police Station. According to report by The Hindu, Doley, the convenor of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Protection Committee (GKLHRPC) and a leading face of the agitation against a proposed luxury hotel project near Kaziranga National Park, was detained under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Police officials stated that he was being questioned in connection with a case registered on June 29 before being handed over to Bokakhat Police for further legal proceedings, although they did not disclose the specific incident leading to the FIR. As per Hindustan Times, Doley, however, alleged that no arrest warrant was shown to him during the operation, asking, “What kind of democracy is this if we are not allowed to raise the voice of the people?“.

Forum for Social Harmony calls arrest an attack on democratic rights

The Forum for Social Harmony characterised Doley’s arrest as “an attack on democratic rights”, alleging that the Assam government had deployed the police machinery to suppress a legitimate people’s movement centred on land rights, livelihood protection and environmental justice. The organisation said the arrest was deeply alarming because it followed a prolonged and peaceful campaign by local farmers, indigenous communities and several people’s organisations opposing the proposed luxury hotel project at Engle (Inglay) Pathar in Kaziranga.

According to the Forum, the government’s response has not been to engage with the concerns raised by affected communities but to repeatedly invoke criminal law against movement leaders. It alleged that the filing of one criminal case after another reflects a “dangerous trend” of shrinking democratic space, where constitutionally protected rights to dissent and freedom of expression are increasingly curtailed through criminal prosecution and police action.

The statement further asserted that the demands of working people seeking to protect their land, livelihoods and environment cannot be silenced through what it described as police repression and fabricated criminal cases. It argued that criminalising those participating in public-interest movements undermines democratic institutions and weakens citizens’ ability to peacefully challenge state policies affecting their lives.

Calling for immediate action, the Forum demanded Doley’s unconditional release, withdrawal of all false and politically motivated cases against him and others associated with the Kaziranga movement, and an end to what it termed the state’s politically motivated repression of protesters. It also appealed to democratic, secular and progressive organisations, farmers’ and workers’ unions, students’ organisations, youth groups, human rights defenders and concerned citizens across Assam to unite in protest against what it described as anti-democratic state action.

The complete statement (translated) is as follows:

PRESS STATEMENT

The Arrest of Pranab Doley is an Attack on Democratic Rights: Forum for Social Harmony

The Forum for Social Harmony strongly condemns the arrest of Pranab Doley, one of the key leaders of the Kaziranga people’s movement, by the Assam Police on 12 July. This attempt by the state government to use the police to suppress a democratic movement fighting for land rights, livelihood, and environmental protection is deeply alarming.

For a long time, local farmers, residents, and various people’s organisations have been protesting against the proposed luxury hotel project at Engle Pathar in Kaziranga. The filing of one criminal case after another and the arrest of leaders of this public-interest movement reflect a dangerous trend of curtailing the democratic right to dissent and freedom of expression.

The Forum firmly states that the legitimate demands of working people to protect their land and livelihoods cannot be silenced through police repression and fabricated criminal cases. This politics of criminalising people’s movements must come to an end.

The Forum for Social Harmony demands the immediate and unconditional release of Pranab Doley, the withdrawal of all false and politically motivated cases filed against him and all others associated with the movement, and an end to the ongoing politically motivated repression against the protesters.

The Forum also calls upon all democratic, secular and progressive forces, farmers’ and workers’ organisations, human rights groups, students’ and youth organisations, and all conscious citizens of the state to unite in protest against these anti-democratic actions.

Harkumar Goswami

Convener

Forum for Social Harmony

12 July 2026

AMSU and AIKMS allege arrests reflect ‘bulldozer politics’ serving corporate interests

In a more expansive joint statement, the Asom Mojuri Shramik Union (AMSU) and the All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS) broadened the issue beyond Doley’s arrest, arguing that it reflects a systematic pattern of criminalising people’s movements across Assam. The organisations also condemned the arrest of Adit Chandra Rabha, advisor to the Borduar Tea Estate Land Pattas Demand Committee and spokesperson of the Nikhil Rabha National Council, contending that both arrests form part of an escalating crackdown on leaders defending land rights.

The organisations argued that these were not isolated incidents but examples of a recurring strategy employed whenever communities organise to defend their rights over land, forests, water and livelihoods. According to the statement, the government increasingly responds to such mobilisations by registering criminal cases under various penal provisions and imprisoning movement leaders through police action. Describing the practice as a serious assault on democratic rights, AMSU and AIKMS alleged that fabricated criminal cases have become a routine instrument for intimidating grassroots movements and weakening public resistance.

One of the central themes of the statement is its critique of what the organisations describe as “bulldozer politics.” They argued that the policy, which they say began with demolitions and evictions in Gorukhuti, has now evolved into a broader political and economic project extending across Assam. According to the organisations, bulldozer politics is not merely about the demolition of homes but about systematically clearing the path for corporate investment by undermining the land, livelihood and labour rights of working people. They alleged that wherever large corporate interests are involved—whether in forced evictions, land acquisition, luxury tourism projects or state control over forests and agricultural land—the state machinery consistently aligns itself with corporate capital rather than affected communities.

Expanding on this argument, AMSU and AIKMS linked Doley’s arrest to several ongoing struggles across Assam. They pointed to the Borduar land rights movement, the continuing resistance against the proposed luxury hotel project in Kaziranga, and the protests against the forced eviction of thousands of tea garden workers in Dolu for the construction of an airport. Rather than viewing these as separate conflicts, the organisations argued that together they demonstrate a consistent pattern in which communities defending their land and livelihoods are met with police action instead of dialogue, consultation or justice.

The statement further alleged that the arrests of Doley and Rabha reveal that the government’s objective extends beyond prosecuting two individuals. Instead, it argued, the broader aim is to silence democratic movements through fear and dismantle organised resistance against what it described as the corporate takeover of land and natural resources. According to the organisations, this assault is not confined to land rights activists but affects tea garden workers, construction workers, gig workers, contract labourers, street vendors and small farmers, all of whom they claim are experiencing the consequences of the same corporate-oriented governance model. While labour protections are weakened, they alleged, those demanding constitutional and labour rights increasingly face criminalisation.

Reaffirming solidarity among workers and peasants across divisions of nationality, religion, language and caste, AMSU and AIKMS said only a united movement of workers, farmers and the toiling masses could effectively resist such policies. The organisations demanded the immediate and unconditional release of both Doley and Rabha, withdrawal of all politically motivated cases against participants in democratic movements, an end to the repression of protests and organising, and the abandonment of policies facilitating forced eviction, land acquisition and erosion of people’s rights in favour of corporate interests.

The complete statement (translated) is as follows:

PRESS STATEMENT

Demand for the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Land Rights Activist Pranab Doley and Nikhil Rabha National Council Spokesperson Adit Chandra Rabha

Escalating repression and arrests are part of a bulldozer politics serving corporate interests: Jason Mojuri Shramik Union and All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS)

Guwahati, July 12: The Central Committee of the Asom Mojuri Shramikv Union (AMSU) and the State Unit of All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS) has strongly condemned the arrest of Pranab Doley, a leader of the Land Rights Movement and one of the key organisers of the Kaziranga resistance movement, and Adit Chandra Rabha, advisor to the Borduar Tea Estate Land Pattas Demand Committee in Rabha Hasong, a prominent leader of Assam’s land rights movement, and spokesperson of the Nikhil Rabha National Council. The two organisations have demanded their immediate and unconditional release.

In a joint statement issued today, the organisations said:

“These arrests are not isolated incidents. Whenever people organise themselves to defend their rights over land, livelihood, forests and water, the government increasingly resorts to registering criminal cases under various penal provisions and imprisoning movement leaders through police action. Using fabricated cases to intimidate democratic movements and weaken popular resistance has become a routine strategy of the government. This is a serious assault on democratic rights.

The bulldozer policy that began in Gorukhuti has now been extended across Assam. This bulldozer politics is not merely about demolishing homes; it is a political project aimed at clearing the way for corporate capital by undermining the rights of working people. Wherever large corporate interests are involved, the state machinery consistently stands with capital against the people. Whether it is forced eviction, land acquisition, luxury tourism projects, or state control over forests and agricultural land, the same pattern is evident everywhere.”

The statement further observed:

“Be it the land struggle in Borduar, the ongoing movement against the proposed luxury hotel project in Kaziranga, or the resistance against the forced eviction of thousands of tea garden workers at Dolu in the name of constructing an airport, the government’s response has been repression instead of dialogue and justice. The legal and mass resistance initiated by the workers of Dolu continues even today. These struggles clearly demonstrate that the government is systematically attacking land rights, livelihood, and labour rights in the interests of corporate capital.

The arrests of Adit Chandra Rabha and Pranab Doley make it clear that the government’s target is not merely two individuals; its real objective is to silence all democratic people’s movements through fear and to crush resistance against corporate plunder.

This assault is not confined to land movements alone. Tea garden workers, construction workers, gig workers, contract workers, small farmers and street vendors are all victims of the same policy. On the one hand, labour rights are being systematically eroded; on the other, those who demand their rights are being criminalised. Both are integral parts of the same corporate-oriented model of governance.”

The Asom Mojuri Shramik Union and the All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS) reaffirmed that this assault can only be resisted through the united struggle of all working people across divisions of nationality, religion, language and caste.

They stated that only the unity of workers, peasants and the toiling masses can defeat the politics of division.

The organisations demand:

Immediate and unconditional release of Pranab Doley and Adit Chandra Rabha.

Withdrawal of all politically motivated cases filed against leaders and participants of democratic people’s movements.

An end to the ongoing repression of democratic protests and the right to organise.

Immediate abandonment of policies of forced eviction, land acquisition, and the erosion of people’s rights in the interests of corporate capital.

Issued by:

Asom Mojuri Shramik Union (AMSU), Central Committee

All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS), Assam State Commitee

Signed by:

Mrinal Kanti Som

Debajit Choudhury

Bhumi Adhikar Andolan raises concerns over legality of arrest, constitutional safeguards

The Bhumi Adhikar Andolan (BAA) issued the most detailed statement, placing Doley’s arrest within the broader framework of indigenous rights, constitutional protections and the increasing criminalisation of land rights defenders across India. Condemning the arrest of what it described as an “indigenous rights defender,” the organisation alleged that around 100 police personnel surrounded the house in Guwahati where Doley was staying during the early hours of July 12.

According to BAA, those present at the residence questioned the police about the legal basis for the operation and asked to see an arrest warrant. The organisation claimed that no warrant was produced during the arrest and that police merely informed those present that Doley was being arrested in connection with a criminal complaint registered at Bokakhat Police Station on June 29.

The organisation also listed the numerous Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions under which the case has reportedly been registered, including Sections 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 329(3), 324(2), 221, 132, 121, 121(1), 121(2), 351(3), 74, 326(g) and 62, highlighting what it suggested was the extensive criminal framework invoked against a leader of a public movement.

BAA described Doley as one of the foremost leaders of the people’s struggle against the proposed Hyatt luxury hotel project at Inglay Pathar on the fringes of Kaziranga National Park. It said the movement has united indigenous communities, Adivasi farmers and local residents who oppose what they view as the diversion of community land for corporate tourism. According to the organisation, protesters have consistently argued that the project threatens farming livelihoods, undermines indigenous land rights and advances a model of development that privileges corporate interests over ecological sustainability and community welfare.

The organisation further argued that communities living around Kaziranga have, for years, resisted attempts to convert ecologically sensitive landscapes into spaces for luxury tourism while those who have historically lived in and protected these areas continue to face displacement, restrictions and criminalisation. It said the movement has consistently demanded transparency in decision-making, recognition of community land rights, ecological justice and adherence to constitutional guarantees protecting indigenous peoples.

Calling the arrest far more than an isolated law-and-order action, BAA alleged that it reflects a growing national pattern of targeting individuals resisting land grabs, forced displacement and the corporate takeover of forests, commons and indigenous territories. According to the organisation, such actions weaken democratic institutions by attempting to silence legitimate dissent through criminal prosecution.

Besides demanding Doley’s immediate release and withdrawal of all allegedly false and politically motivated cases, BAA also called for full adherence to constitutional and legal safeguards, including immediate access to legal counsel and family members, protection from custodial violence or harassment, and an independent and transparent review of the proposed Hyatt hotel project and all actions taken against affected communities. It further appealed to democratic organisations, trade unions, environmental groups, lawyers, journalists, farmers’ organisations, civil liberties groups and citizens across the country to stand in solidarity with the people of Kaziranga, asserting that the defence of land, forests, livelihoods and indigenous rights is a democratic and constitutional struggle—not a crime.

The complete statement is as follows:

Statement by Bhumi Adhikar Andolan (BAA)

Condemn the Arrest of Indigenous Rights Defender Pranab Doley; Release Him Immediately

Bhumi Adhikar Andolan (BAA) strongly condemns the arrest of Pranab Doley, an indigenous peoples’ leader from Kaziranga, Assam, by the Assam Police from Guwahati on 12 July 2026.

According to information received, around 100 police personnel surrounded the house where Pranab Doley was staying in Guwahati from the early hours of the morning. Those present reportedly questioned the police regarding the legal basis of the operation and stated that no arrest warrant was produced at the time of arrest. The police informed them that the arrest was in connection with a criminal complaint registered on 29 June 2026 at Bokakhat Police Station.

We understand that the case has been registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 329(3), 324(2), 221, 132, 121, 121(1), 121(2), 351(3), 74, 326(g) and 62.

Pranab Doley has been one of the foremost leaders of the people’s struggle against the proposed Hyatt luxury hotel project at Inglay Pathar (Inle Pothar) on the fringes of Kaziranga National Park. The movement has brought together indigenous communities, Adivasi farmers and local residents who have consistently opposed the diversion of land for corporate tourism projects. They have argued that the proposed project threatens the livelihoods of farming families, undermines the rights of indigenous communities and promotes a model of development that prioritises corporate interests over people and the environment.

For the past several years, the people of Kaziranga have raised their voices against attempts to convert ecologically sensitive landscapes into spaces for luxury tourism while communities that have lived in and protected these landscapes continue to face displacement, restrictions and criminalisation. The movement has consistently demanded transparency, protection of community land rights, ecological justice and respect for constitutional guarantees.

The arrest of Pranab Doley is not an isolated incident. It comes in the context of an intensifying pattern of criminalising those who resist land grabs, forced displacement and the corporate takeover of forests, commons and indigenous territories. Such actions weaken democratic institutions and seek to silence legitimate dissent.

Bhumi Adhikar Andolan demands:

* Immediate release of Pranab Doley.

* Withdrawal of all false and politically motivated cases against him and other activists associated with the Kaziranga movement.

* Full adherence to constitutional and legal safeguards, including immediate access to legal counsel and family members.

* Protection from custodial violence and any form of harassment.

* An independent and transparent review of the proposed Hyatt hotel project and all actions taken against the affected communities.

We call upon democratic organisations, people’s movements, civil liberties groups, trade unions, farmers’ organisations, environmental groups, lawyers, journalists and all concerned citizens across the country to stand in solidarity with the people of Kaziranga and demand the immediate release of Pranab Doley.

The struggle to defend land, forests, livelihoods and the rights of indigenous peoples is a democratic and constitutional struggle—not a crime. Attempts to silence those who resist corporate land grabs will only strengthen the resolve of people’s movements across the country.

Release Pranab Doley immediately.

Bhumi Adhikar Andolan (BAA)

12 July 2026

Arrest follows protests against Kaziranga luxury hotel project

Doley’s arrest comes against the backdrop of an intensifying campaign against the proposed construction of luxury hotels on the fringes of Kaziranga National Park, a project that has triggered sustained opposition from indigenous communities, farmers and local residents over concerns relating to displacement, ecological degradation and the diversion of community land.

According to The Indian Express, Doley, 40, was detained by a team of Dispur Police from the Sundarpur area of Guwahati on July 12 in connection with a case registered at Bokakhat Police Station in Golaghat district. Police officials stated that he was detained under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to offences including criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal trespass, voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from discharging official duties, obstruction of public servants and criminal intimidation. Officials said the investigating officer from Bokakhat was travelling to Guwahati to take custody of Doley for further legal proceedings but did not disclose the specific incident that led to the registration of the FIR.

As per the report of Hindustan Times, the case is believed to be linked to confrontations between local protesters and the police during demonstrations held near Hatikhuli approximately two weeks earlier, where residents had protested against the proposed tourism project. However, the police have not officially confirmed whether those protests directly form the basis of the criminal case.

Doley has emerged as one of the most recognisable faces of the resistance against the proposed luxury hotel developments around Kaziranga. As the convenor of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Protection Committee (GKLHRPC), he has led protests highlighting what local communities describe as the ecological and social consequences of commercial tourism projects in the region. Protesters have consistently argued that such developments threaten wildlife corridors, agricultural land and the livelihoods of indigenous and Adivasi communities while advancing corporate interests at the expense of local populations. Doley has also previously accused authorities of violating the rights of communities living around Kaziranga in the name of conservation and anti-poaching operations.

Bhumi Adhikar Joutha Sangram Samiti alleges pattern of targeting land rights leaders

Echoing many of the concerns raised by the three organisations, the Bhumi Adhikar Joutha Sangram Samiti (Joint Action Committee for Land Rights) also condemned Doley’s arrest, alleging that the Assam government was systematically targeting leaders spearheading land rights movements across the state.

In a statement issued by advisor Shantanu Borthakur and conveners Gobinda Rabha, Krishna Gogoi and Subrata Talukdar, the committee alleged that Doley’s arrest was directly linked to his role in leading campaigns to protect the land rights of indigenous communities and opposing corporate-backed projects in Kaziranga. Referring to the recent arrest of Adit Chandra Rabha, advisor to the Borduar Bagan Bhumi Pattan Dabi Samiti and spokesperson of the Nikhil Rabha Jatiya Parishad, the committee argued that both arrests reflected a broader pattern of action against prominent leaders associated with Assam’s land rights movement.

“The only crime of Pranab Doley was that he joined the struggle to protect the land of 45 Adivasi families in Kaziranga and campaigned against large corporations,” the committee said, alleging that corporate interests were increasingly being advanced with the support of the state government while activists defending community rights were facing criminal prosecution.

Describing the arrests as part of a wider crackdown on democratic voices, the committee demanded Doley’s immediate release and urged the Assam government to end what it termed the harassment of land rights activists and those participating in democratic movements.

Opposition leaders question police action

The arrest also drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who questioned the government’s use of police action against those protesting state policies.

According to IE report, Assam Congress president and Lok Sabha MP Gaurav Gogoi described Doley’s detention as an attempt to silence voices critical of the government. Stating that citizens in a democracy have the right to oppose government policies, Gogoi argued that the police action exposed what he called the contradiction between the ruling BJP’s claims of protecting indigenous rights and its treatment of those raising concerns over land and livelihood.

Similarly, Raijor Dal president and Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi accused the BJP-led government of imprisoning tribal leaders to protect the interests of corporate capital, alleging that those defending the rights of indigenous communities were increasingly being treated as criminals rather than citizens exercising their democratic rights.

The arrest has therefore triggered condemnation not only from organisations directly associated with the Kaziranga movement but also from labour unions, farmers’ organisations, indigenous rights groups, land rights collectives and opposition political leaders, all of whom have questioned the state’s response to sustained public protests over the proposed luxury tourism project. Together, the statements present the arrest as more than an isolated policing action, framing it instead as part of a broader debate over democratic dissent, constitutional rights, environmental justice, indigenous land rights and the increasing criminalisation of grassroots movements in Assam.

Related:

The cost of a wrongful deportation

‘Bangla Pokkho’ founder Garga Chatterjee arrested over alleged EVM misinformation ahead of Bengal polls

Parade of Public Shaming: How Rajasthan police’s illegal “arrest rituals” replace due process with public defilement

Faiz-e-Ilahi Masjid, Turkman Gate: A court-ordered demolition, midnight policing, stone-pelting, arrests, and the ongoing legal battle

Targeted by Mob, Arrested without Cause: Two Catholic nuns jailed in Chhattisgarh despite consent documents and no evidence of conversion

The post ‘Attack on democratic rights’: Rights groups denounce Pranab Doley’s arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Political economist, Parakala Prabhakar delivered the Father Stan Swamy Memorial Lecture, St. Patrick’s High School, Secunderabad July 11, 2026. Here is the full text of the lecture:

Dignitaries on the dais and my dear friends,

I felt sad, was moved to tears, when Father Stan Swamy died. There was a chapter on him in my book, The Crooked Timber of New India. The title of the chapter is ‘Who Killed Father Stan Swamy?’ You would have noticed that I asked, ‘who killed’ Stan Swamy’. I meant that he did not simply die. I meant that he was, indeed, killed.

Today I am not asking the same question. I am asking a different one: ‘Who is afraid of Stan Swamy?’ I further ask, ‘Why are they afraid of him?’

In April this year, I went to Bagaicha, Namkum, on the outskirts of Ranchi. I spent two days there. I delivered a lecture on the occasion of his Jayanthi. It was called ‘Stan Swamy Jayanthi Vimarsa.’

 Today I am here not to share my sorrow with you. I am here to celebrate the life of Father Stan Swamy, and together with you to draw inspiration from the values he stood for, and his work to uphold them.

I am grateful to the organisers for giving me an opportunity to speak on this occasion.

A Few Concerns

Before I proceed further, I would like to caution you all about a few things that worry me these days. Some of you might have come across these alarm bells. I say these cautionary words whenever I get an opportunity to address a gathering, big or small. Those who heard these few lines before should forgive me for repeating. I repeat them because I strongly feel that they are important, and bear repetition.

First caution. If some people in this gathering think that we can continue to hold this kind of meetings in future, I appeal to them to shed that delusion. Even now in many parts of the country it is becoming increasingly difficult to air our views freely, and without consequences. If things go the way they are going now, soon it will be impossible to impossible to hold such meetings.

Second. This year it is nearly certain that our beloved tricolour will fly on the Red Fort on our Independence Day. But come next year, I am not sure. Anyone here can guess the colour of the flag that is a likely to fly.

Third. Recently the Union Home Ministry has issued a circular. It makes the singing of all the six stanzas of Vandemataram, compulsory. It also specified that it should be sung before Jana Gana Mana. If the present drift continues unchecked, sooner than later, Jana Gana Mana could be gradually phased out. If the ten-hour marathon debate on Vandemataram in our Lok Sabha tells us anything, it is this.

Our Parliament does not discuss people’s issues any longer. It has no time for them. There has been no discussion on unemployment, price rise, situation in Manipur, rural distress in the country, falling exchange value of the rupee, operation Sindoor, Chinese occupation of large tracts of our territory, falling domestic investment, and many such urgent issues. But our Lok Sabha found time for a ten-hour marathon discussion on Vande Mataram.

If we let the present drift continue unchecked, these three dangerous possibilities would soon be realities.

There is one more danger in the making, the fourth. Recently the government has constituted a High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes (HLCDC). You have to read its terms of reference to understand its import and what it could do to our society. The repeated use of the term ‘illegal immigration’ is a giveaway of the present dispensation’s intentions behind embarking on an exercise like this.

Our Values

When I remember Father Stan Swamy and think of how we look at him and the regime looked at him, I am reminded of William Blake’s words:

A tree that moves some to tears is to others a green thing that stands in the way… As a man is, so he sees.

We all share a set of values and ideals. The best expression of those values was given by Father Stan Swamy just before his arrest on October 8, 2020.

This is what he said: 

“Over the last two decades, I have identified myself with the Adivasi people and their struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect… In this process, I have clearly expressed my dissent over several policies and laws enacted by the government in light of the Indian Constitution. I have questioned the validity, legality, and justness of several steps taken by the government and the ruling class. If this makes me a ‘deshdrohi,’ then so be it. We are part of the process. In a way, I am happy to be part of this process. I am not a silent spectator, but part of the game and ready to pay the price, whatever it may be… I/we must be ready to face the consequences. I would just add that what is happening to me is not unique. Many activists, lawyers, writers, journalists, student leaders, poets, intellectuals, and others who stand for the rights of Adivasis, Dalits, and the marginalised and express their dissent to the ruling powers are being targeted. I am grateful to all who have stood in solidarity with me all these years.”

Let me take out the important words and expressions from what he said and make a list of them.

Adivasis; Dalits; the marginalised; ruling powers; struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect; dissent; solidarity; Indian Constitution; validity; legality; justness; deshdrohi; silent spectator; pay the price; face the consequences.

Situation in the Country 

Economy 

There are some stubbornly enduring features of the present dispensation in the economic domain. It is not able to shed them even well into its third consecutive term: Ad hoc-ism in policy making, reluctance to learn from past mistakes, denial of lived economic reality of the common people, massaging of data to present a rosy picture of the economy, believing its own propaganda (though it is initially meant for setting PR narratives), wrongly interpreting its electoral successes as an endorsement, if not an outcome, of its record of economic performance.

The government remains resolute in sticking to the denial mode. It takes little note of the economic slowdown, the tapering off of capital inflows into the country, flight of capital from India, decline in the domestic private investment despite reduction in corporate taxes, the much-hyped Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme and the so-called ‘crowding in’ of public investment. The unorganised sector in the country is largely in decline or in stagnation is no concern to it. We all know that this is the sector that can give at least subsistence incomes to the vast majority of our people.

Instead, the present dispensation is spending time ideating on how to ‘add more momentum to the reforms journey’, ensure ‘ease of living’ and ‘ease of doing business’. For whom?

Evidently, for a few of its cronies.

Much of the credit offtake in the country is now for consumption. Problems such as rising cost of living especially for the poor and the marginalised, unacceptably high youth unemployment and unemployment among the educated do not matter to it. One of the high-profile economic policy makers is on record saying that it was not the lack of opportunities but lack of aspiration that kept our young people out of work.

Little did he realise that both the organised and unorganised sectors are unable to absorb the labour force. Rising economic inequality matters little to the dispensation. Its policy wonks even exhort us ‘not to lose sleep over inequality’.

The present dispensation lacks appetite for an honest review of its past initiatives and for course correction. That demonetisation has done little to serve any objective, assuming it had even one. It decimated thousands of small businesses and establishments in the unorganised sector. That ghastly experience offered no lessons to it. Even the after-thought sort of objective of reducing cash transactions in the economy remains unserved nearly eight years after the measure. One glance at the disaggregated data of UPI transactions is enough to tell us that.

The dispensation is tone deaf to the plight of the poor and the marginalised.

That damage itself is difficult to undo. But what accompanied that damage is more serious: the institutional compromise that occurred and continues even today. The foremost is the compromise of our economic data infrastructure. Our national accounts estimates have become questionable. They are contestable not merely from the methodological and base-year points of view. Their integrity in collection, lazy erroneous proxying, reporting, analysing and computing have come under a cloud.

Our statistical architecture is now undependable. It is recognised as untrustworthy by global financial agencies. The Planning Commission was perhaps oversized and might not have been the most efficient institution. But at least it did not give the government of the day inaccurate data tailored to suit its political needs. Its replacement, the NITI Aayog, is yet to do anything worthwhile in the last twelve years other than that.

The Reserve Bank of India has been bleeding billions of dollars to protect the rupee’s exchange rate vis-a-vis the US dollar. However, its intervention could only prevent a sudden steep fall but not arrest the currency’s steep slide. Rupee continues to reach newer lows every trading day. The government does not seem to have come to grips with the fundamental problems plaguing the rupee and figure out why it is the worst performing Asian currency today. It is in denial. It wants to look for reasons only in the global headwinds.

The present dispensation is genetically unfit to getting the economy right. Its sole preoccupation is to recast the polity in a majoritarian mould. It has no economic project for the country. Its sole aim seems to be the enrichment of a few of its cronies.

It would be a mistake to think that the last twelve years have been bad for the country’s economic performance alone.

The present dispensation is fundamentally altering the political society of the country. That is equally a serious problem.

Polity: Dismantling Secular, Inclusive India

The present dispensation is fiendishly working to dismantle the idea of India as a secular, plural, and federal state that pledged itself to delivering liberty, equality, justice and fraternity to its people and to foster a humane society. The idea of India embedded in our 1947 tryst with destiny and the political compact enshrined in our 1950 constitution are now in mortal danger.

The secular, plural, democratic conception of India has been the target of unrelenting assaults from this dispensation and several other past-worshipping obscurantist platforms. They have been openly and doggedly championing an unequal social order. Their project is to seek India’s future in its past; to recover from that imaginary past a fabricated pristine glory; to turn the secular, democratic Republic into a culturally, linguistically, religiously homogenized nation. The idea that Indian civilization is a synthesis, and a palimpsest, is abhorrent to them. Their project’s notion of India seeks to obliterate the rich diversity of cultures, languages, lifestyles, eating habits, sartorial practices, ways of worship and syncretism that our country is blessed with.

A flattened India is their notion of a ‘civilizational’ state. That is the goal of the current dispensation. 

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is but one key element in a grand project that seeks to assert exclusive Hindu ownership of the Indian nation, to make that Hindu-owned nation the sole rightful resident in the territory of the Indian state – and turn it into a Hindu nation-state, a Hindu Rashtra. It seeks to redefine the country’s identity as ‘Hindu nation-state’. In that configuration ‘savarna’ is deliberately muted and made illegible for the time being for tactical reasons.

Eventually, when constraints are broken, it would be unveiled as a full-blooded, unapologetic, wall to wall ‘savarna Hindu Rashtra’. Make no mistake.

Bloodless Political Genocide 

When we became a Republic, our founding parents made it a home for everyone who lived in its territory. Membership of the Republic, and citizenship, were not predicated on religion, caste, gender, language, culture, region of residence, colour, economic status, educational qualifications and such other attributes. Everyone who chose India as their land of residence was a citizen, also a voter, and thus a full-fledged member of the country’s political society. Denominational attributes did not privilege one or the other as rightful owners of the nation. Everybody was. Janmabhumi was the sole criterion. We did not entertain Punyabhumi as a criterion for our citizenship or membership of our political society.

Europe went through a different experience when nation states were formed. There were people who rightfully belonged and those who were ‘others’ or minorities. That was the basis of European nation-states. There were majorities and minorities. Not political, but on the basis of birth, race, religion, language, culture. Minorities’ residence was predicated on their becoming tolerable to the majorities. European countries, and countries which adopted that model of building their nation-states, either subjugated minorities, pushed them out of their territories, or even exterminated them. Beginning from the cleansing of the Iberian peninsula in the mid and late 15^th century until the ethnic cleansing that Israel carries out today, history is witness to many bloody attempts to forge homogenized nations. Nazi gas chambers were the most dastardly consequence of this project.

But in India our founding parents and freedom fighters chose a different path. They designed our collective life in a way that the state gave room for everyone, despite their diversity, to live together and thrive.

But ideologies in India that draw their inspiration from the inhumane European concept of nation-owned state want our Republic too to be turned into a state, owned by one nation – the Hindu nation. The present dispensation belongs to that ideological stable. In its conception of a Republic, the ‘others’ needed to be assimilated to the point of obliterating their respective identities, pushed out of the territory of the nation-state, or exterminated through genocide.

Remember, the ideological formulation articulated by the current ruling dispensation a few years ago? It said that there are three ways to deal with the minorities: Tiraskar (Rejection), Puraskar (Appeasement), Samskar (Reform and assimilation).

Initially when the country’s secular consensus was strong, it said that it was not practical to reject a large minority. So Tiraskar was ruled out then. But at the same time, it said, that appeasement or Puraskar was not an ideal option. It wanted to work on the gradual assimilation of minorities, Samskar, into the Hindu fold to the extent that their religious identity and other markers are completely obliterated. You may have heard, expressions from some majoritarians, like, ‘that individual is a Christian, but a good person; that person is a Muslim, but a good individual.’ Meaning, despite being a Christian or a Muslim, ‘they are like us and therefore, tolerable and acceptable.’ That is the harmless looking beginning to the formulation that others had to become ‘tolerable’ and ‘acceptable’ to earn their right to be part of India.

After a few years of unsuccessful dabbling in that experiment, the current dispensation’s ideology finally brought back the initially discarded option on to the top of its political agenda: Rejection, Tiraskar. With the weakening of the secular consensus, or even its breakdown, Rejection has now morphed into Ejection. Ejection from the country’s political society.

Remember, what Shri LK Advani used to say with reference to Muslim minority? He said, ‘with you, without you, in spite of you’. Meaning, ‘if they come along, with them; if they don’t, without them; and if they oppose, in spite of them’ That is a pointer to exclusion of minorities if they do not play along and assimilate or accept an unequal and subordinate place in the country’s political, economic and social life. Lynchings, bulldozing of houses, vandalizing churches on Christmas Eve are physical expressions of these formulations.

Today, look at the political reality in our country. For the first time in the history of independent India, the union council of ministers has no representative from either the Muslim or the Christian minority community. A few weeks ago, even the token presence of a Christian minority presence in the union ministry was dispensed with. The ministry is now composed exclusively of persons from the so-called Indic religions. The task of exclusion in the domain of political representation in the executive is more or less accomplished.

But what could be done about the political society? In the present-day India, both the pushing out and physical extermination of unassimilated minorities are politically impractical.

However, extermination of a political kind of the others is possible.

Instead of exterminating the citizen, citizenship could be exterminated. The ongoing SIR is the weapon forged for that kind of extermination. It exterminates citizenship of those unwanted, impure elements by exterminating their franchise. It is clear that without franchise, citizenship is hollow, without substance. Disenfranchisement hollows out citizenship.

Therefore, SIR is nothing but a bloodless political genocide. It exterminates citizenship, pushes people out of the political society, makes people stateless even as they continue to live within the borders of the Indian state. What CAA-NRC could not do, SIR is tasked to accomplish.

The idea of India as a state-nation (in contradistinction to a nation-state) that is home to diverse peoples, cultures, languages and religions is being dismantled at a fiendish pace.

Stan Swamy’s words once again 

This is the place where we need to recall the key words that I listed out from the statement made by Father Stan Swamy just before he was taken into custody on 8 October 2020.

Let me utter those words once again here:

Adivasis; Dalits; the marginalised; ruling powers; struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect; dissent; solidarity; Indian Constitution; validity; legality; justness; deshdrohi; silent spectator; pay the price; face the consequences.

Many studies have already clearly established that it is the Adivasis, the Dalits, the marginalized sections and specifically women among them who are being systematically targeted for deletion in the ongoing process of SIR.

Father Stan Swamy would have stood for them.

Today many in both the rural and urban India are battling for a life of dignity and self-respect.

Father Stan Swamy would have helped them wage their battles.

He would have given them the much-needed solidarity.

Our country’s social compact of secularism, plurality, federalism, diversity, justice, fraternity, equality and liberty are in mortal danger today.

Fr Stan Swamy would not have been a silent spectator in the face of an onslaught on these core values of our Constitution.

He would have risked being called a Deshdrohi and spoken out for them.

He was already called that. He would not have minded being called a Deshdrohi a thousand times over, and pay the price, if he were to express his dissent and face the consequences.

Whatever they might be.

I am sure, he would want us to do that.

Father Stan Swamy did not make noise. He was quietly working in the remote and neglected parts of the country.

The current dispensation was afraid of a frail, unwell, octogenarian.

That is because he personified all the values that are needed for our country, that are dear to us but are inimical to the project of the powers that be in Delhi.

Thank you for your attention.

Related:

Did Indian Democracy fail Father Stan Swamy?

To a living Saint, now dead five years: Meeting to commemorate July 5

Why Adivasis seek to re-assert their traditional identity

The post Who is afraid of Stan Swamy? And why? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a scathing comment on what the Election Commission of India (ECI) has become today, Justice Lokur said it has become Imperium in Imperio (a power within a power). Nobody can question it. Article 324 was not intended to give blanket power to the Election Commission. That is we have the Representation of the People Act and the guidelines under Article 327 of the Constitution:  once you have a field that is occupied by law, fine — you have to go by that law.

Justice Madan Lokur

Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur Justice served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India from June 4, 2012 to December 30, 2018. He was speaking at a conclave on ‘One Nation-One Election, Federalism and Citizenship’, organised at the Constitution Club in Delhi. The conclave was organised jointly by the Constitutional Conduct Group and the Group on Federalism & Elections.

Also at the conclave were former Home Secretary Gopal Pillai, former Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Quraishi, former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, former chairman of the Law Commission of India Justice A. P. Shah, political scientist Niraja Jayal, and transparency advocate Anjali Bhardwaj, among others.

Justice Lokur speaking on the occasion said:

First, I would like to deal with the issue of the controversy that we are facing right now, which was adverted to by Ashok Lavasa (former Election Commissioner)— the passport versus the citizen. If I have an Indian passport, am I a citizen of India? Am I recognised as a citizen of India? We have been told by the Ministry of External Affairs, in a press conference, that the passport is nothing but a travel document — that it does not mean you are a citizen of India just because you have a passport. Therefore, I had a look at the Passports Act of 1967. And I will read to you the Preamble to the Act, and then come to some other sections. The Preamble to the Act says that it is “an Act to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons,” and so on. So the Preamble itself makes a distinction — and so does the Act itself — between a passport and a travel document. A passport is defined in the Passports Act, and a travel document is also, separately, defined in the Passports Act.

Now, Parliament does not make laws using superfluous words, or words that have no meaning — I think that is a well-settled principle. So when the Passports Act talks about a passport, and separately talks about a travel document, it means that these are two separate documents. To say that a passport is nothing but a travel document is, I think, a complete misreading of the provisions of the Passports Act.

That is the first thing which I think should be clarified: since it is a complete misreading, a person who holds an Indian passport is a citizen of India. I think that should be very clear.

Now, look at it from the point of view of somebody from outside the country.

You go to an Embassy for a Visa because you want to travel abroad, and the officer there says: “I am giving this visa to you on the basis that you are a citizen of India, but your Ministry of External Affairs says that the document you are presenting to me is not a passport in that sense, and does not certify that you are a citizen of India. So, I am sorry, I can’t give you a visa!”

What happens then at such a time? Does it mean that all the Indians who have gone abroad — to Europe, to the United States, and so on — are persons who are not citizens of India, just because they have a passport? It doesn’t mean anything at all. The passport is effectively reduced to a ticket. Not even an airline ticket, but perhaps a bus ticket — something that entitles you to travel from one destination to another and nothing more.

Now, I think, with great respect to the officer in the Ministry, this is saying something which is totally contrary to the law, and totally contrary to the Constitution of India.

The third thing is what people have been saying — and they said so on TV.

This is that Section 20 of the Passports Act enables the Government of India to give a passport to a person who is not a citizen of India. Fair enough — it does. But how many people who are not citizens of India have actually been given passports of India? We don’t know. I will be surprised if there is anybody who has been given an Indian passport who is not a citizen of India and is admittedly a foreigner. So to quote Section 20 and what it enables is neither here nor there, because we don’t even have the facts. We don’t know how many such people have got passports, who those people are, or the circumstances in which such passports were given. We don’t know anything about this. So Section 20, at least on the evidence available today, is a dead letter.

Take something like the Bharat Ratna. It can be given to a foreign citizen. How many foreigners have actually got the Bharat Ratna? Just two — Nelson Mandela and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, that’s it. But we know them, and we know what their nationality is; we know they are citizens of different countries. Under Section 20, first of all, we don’t even know whether such a passport has been given; we don’t know who that person is; we don’t know the nationality or the citizenship of that person. So we are just talking about something which is hypothetical. I think even this submission — that, well, it can be given to a foreign national — is neither here nor there.

There has been a mention of citizenship by birth. Yes, the Constitution of India and the Citizenship Act do mention citizenship by birth. There has also been a reference to the recent judgment of the United States Supreme Court. By the way, the US Constitution talks about citizenship by birth — but the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, says that Congress can make a law with regard to citizenship. And the Constitution of India also says the same thing, and it is on that basis that the Citizenship Act has been framed. So perhaps that is what the President of the United States is looking at — the possibility of framing a law under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to do away with citizenship by birth. We have done it. We have done it — we have put in some conditions, some riders: one parent being a citizen of India, one parent not being an illegal immigrant. I don’t know what the United States Supreme Court would or will do.

The last point I want to make on this is something I think is very, very important, and that is that the Constitution of India gives certain fundamental rights only to citizens. Among the most important of these are the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to travel and move to any place within India, the right to carry on any business, profession, occupation or activity. These are granted only to citizens; they are not granted to everybody else. Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, is granted to everybody, whether you are a citizen or not. Article 14, the right to equality, is granted to everybody — it doesn’t matter whether you are a citizen of India or not.

But Article 19 is granted only to citizens of India.

So if a person is declared to be a person who is not a citizen of India — why? Because he or she does not satisfy the requirements of the Election Commission, and therefore is not able to vote, and therefore, under Article 326, is perhaps deemed not a citizen of India — then that person is not entitled to any of the fundamental rights under Article 19. Can you imagine that? Somebody takes away your fundamental right to freedom of speech. You go to the court and say, I am a citizen of India, and my fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression has been taken away. And the judge asks you: what proof do you have that you are a citizen of India? What is your answer? You don’t have a single document to show that you are a citizen of India. You have a passport — but the judge says, sorry, the passport is a travel document, it is not a document of citizenship.

So, in effect, all these persons who have not been allowed to vote, and are therefore held not to be citizens of India, and are perhaps stateless persons, have been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19. So you have these 27 lakh, or 22 lakh, or

6.5 crore persons — whatever the figure — roaming around the country without the fundamental right to freedom of speech, to movement, to expression, to carrying on any business or occupation, because they are not citizens.

So really, when we are looking at this controversy about citizenship and passports, or about citizenship per se, we are looking at something which is extremely serious and which requires considerable debate and discussion — not some press conference where a joint secretary says that just because you have a passport, it does not mean you are a citizen of India. It has very, very serious consequences, which must be debated.

The second thing I would like to mention is about the Supreme Court, the Election Commission, and the judgments that have been rendered recently by the Supreme Court in the last year or two.

I do not want to say anything about the judgment on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, because that judgment is still to be delivered. The only thing I would like to say is that this was debated in Parliament, and one of the suggestions given was that Parliament should appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners. That was mentioned, it was discussed, but it was turned down. The reason given was that the Election Commission is going to decide who is elected to Parliament, so we must have a person who is totally impartial. The Constituent Assembly was very clear that the Election Commission should have nothing to do with the executive. But today we have been told that two-thirds of the members of the selection committee to select the Chief Election Commissioner are members of the executive — the Prime Minister and a Cabinet Minister. So what the Constituent Assembly postulated — that there should be a complete separation between the executive and the Election Commission — has been done away with. But beyond that, there is not much I would like to say, because the judgment should be delivered any time now.

The recent judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly the ADR judgment, recognise the right to vote as a constitutional right. Now, way back in 1950–52, in the N.P. Ponnuswami case, a six-judge bench of the Supreme Court said that the right to vote is nothing but a statutory right — it is there in the Representation of the People Act, it is a statutory right. But now, in a sense overruling that six-judge decision, the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view — and it has been reiterated in that ADR judgment — that it is a constitutional right. That is good. I am not saying it should not be a constitutional right — but it is a constitutional right, and therefore it is very important.

So you can’t take away a constitutional right of a person. Apart from Article 19 and so on, if you say that you can’t vote, you are taking away a constitutional right — and you can’t just take it away by saying, listen, you produce certain documents. That is where the idea of a rebuttable presumption comes in. The presumption is that I am a citizen of India.

Somebody has to say that, no, you are not a citizen of India. I don’t have to prove that I am a citizen of India. Whereas now, what has happened is that I have to prove that I am a citizen of India. So that rebuttable presumption has been inverted, and the burden has been cast upon me — someone says to me, you please prove that you are a citizen of India, and if you are able to prove it through the production of these documents, I’ll allow you to vote.

It is actually the other way around. The presumption is that anybody who is here is a citizen of India. I can have an objection and say, listen, I don’t think this person is a citizen of India — in which case I can rebut that presumption and prove it, to the satisfaction of the Election Commission that this person is not a citizen of India. So there is a distinction to be made between a rebuttable presumption and the existence of a presumption which can be rebutted. I think the Election Commission has, in the recent past, kind of overturned that burden of proof.

What is the consequence of that? The consequence is that something like 27 lakh people, perhaps, in West Bengal have been disenfranchised. I met one of the tribunal members last week — last Saturday. She told me that on average — there are 18 tribunals; 19 were constituted, but one member resigned, and I don’t know if a replacement has been appointed. Out of the 18 tribunals, the daily disposal is about 20 to 25 cases per tribunal. On a rough calculation, that comes to about 500 cases being decided per day. I don’t know how many working days there are, but try and imagine: if 500 cases are decided in a day, how much time will it take for 27, or 22, or 23 lakh cases to be decided? And then to say, listen, you need not vote in this election, you can vote in the next election — perhaps that person’s turn may not even come in the next election, since the rate of adjudication is at 500 or 600 cases a day.

I also think that one of the important points the Supreme Court has missed is the expression “reason to believe,” which is there in the Act — that you can have an SIR if you have reason to believe that there is something wrong in the electoral roll. What is that reason to believe?

The expression “reason to believe” has been interpreted a hundred times under the Income Tax Act. You have an assessment order; the income tax officer has reason to believe that you have some income which has escaped assessment; he has to give the reasons why he has come to that belief; that has to be seen by the Commissioner, and then a notice is issued to you for reassessment. The PMLA, which the Enforcement Directorate is using day in and day out, also has the expression “reason to believe” — there is reason to believe that you are guilty of money laundering, or that you have some income which you have not shown and which you have perhaps laundered. The Representation of the People Act — the 1950 Act — also talks about “reason to believe.” The Election Commission has reason to believe that the electoral roll has been wrongly prepared in any constituency. The Supreme Court has said that “any constituency” can mean the entire country. Fair enough. But the reason to believe must be there — and the reason to believe has not been specified in the judgment of the Supreme Court. So we don’t even know what the reason is. Questions have been raised: what is the reason that you have? The electoral roll was prepared in January, elections were held in January; in June you said, well, I have reason to believe that it has to be revised. What were the reasons? Nobody knows. And the reason is, well, I think it should be done.

The Constituent Assembly used an expression, in the context of the judiciary — Imperium in Imperio, a power within a power. That is what the Election Commission is becoming today: Imperium in Imperio. Nobody can question it. Article 324 was not intended to give blanket power to the Election Commission. That is why you had the Representation of the People Act; that is why you had Article 327, which gives certain guidelines. So if the field is occupied by law, fine — you have to go by that law. If the area is unoccupied, then Article 324 comes into the picture. The Supreme Court said as much in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case, and that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in ADR. I don’t agree with the interpretation, but that is a separate point. I believe that if the field is occupied, you go by what the law says; if it is not occupied, you go by what Article 324 says. It is not that Article 324 can, in a sense, say: well, I don’t think the field is occupied — even though it is occupied, I don’t think it is, and therefore I will do what I feel like doing. That is where the Imperium in Imperio concept comes in with the Election Commission, and I am afraid that has been given to the Election Commission.

There were two more things, actually. One: Mr Ashok Lavasa mentioned the piecemeal revision of electoral rolls. If you look at the statute, the revision or updating of the electoral rolls is expected to be a continuous process. You are supposed to do it all the time, because births are taking place all the time, deaths are taking place all the time, migration is taking place all the time. So you have to keep doing it continuously — not every day, but maybe once in six months, once in three months, once in a year, whatever it is. And when you come to the conclusion that there is something wrong, that is when you exercise the power to have this SIR. That is the reason to believe — that my study, of something I was supposed to do on a regular basis, is what has given me the impression, the empirical evidence, that the roll is incorrect and needs a revision, and therefore I order an SIR.

It could not have happened between January and June 2025. It could not have happened throughout the country. To say that because there has been no revision for the last 20 years, therefore I am going to have an SIR, is not correct. It means that for the last 20 years you have not been doing your job. You should have been doing it. Why have you not done it? How about explaining that to the people of the country? And if you have been doing it, then there is no reason for you to revise the electoral rolls of the entire country. So this piecemeal argument is, I think, of considerable significance. It just shows that either the Election Commission has not been working, or it has on its own decided that whatever happened in the past is wrong, we want to correct it, and we are going to do it in a period of three or four months in Bihar, and maybe some shorter period elsewhere.

The last thing I want to say is about welfare benefits. You had the situation in Bihar, you had the situation in West Bengal — people whose names are not on the electoral roll are not entitled to benefits. It is said, well, if you file an appeal, it’s okay, we’ll consider it. But in some places

— in Bihar, that is what I read in the newspapers — they are being deprived of the benefits. So just imagine the consequence. First of all, you are deprived of a fundamental right that you have under Article 19. Then you are deprived of certain benefits that you are entitled to because of your poverty. So advantage is being taken of your poverty to deprive you of the benefits that you should get because of your poverty. And you can’t carry on any business, profession or occupation, because that right has been taken away — because you are not a citizen. So where do these people go?

So the point is that this entire controversy that has been raised with regard to citizenship, and with regard to the SIR, is something so serious that a couple of discussions here or there is not going to make a difference. It is time that the Supreme Court actually looked into it — not simply saying that, because the Election Commission has done it, and it has the power under 324, we hold 324 to be a plenary power, and so on and so forth.

Look beyond the law. What is the consequence of the law? What is the consequence of an action taken under the law?

This is my closing comment. Just two days ago, you had one judgment from the Bombay High Court, where a person was externed from Mumbai because he had said something about a Cabinet Minister, and a couple of other things — completely innocuous — and he said, I have a right to protest. The Commissioner of Police externed him from Mumbai. So he had to leave his residence, go out of Mumbai, and find a place to stay. I was wondering whether the externment order had been stayed by the Bombay High Court. Whatever the exact position — the newspaper report is not entirely clear on that — the fact is that for seven months he lived outside Mumbai. He was sharing a flat with somebody. His family was in Mumbai. His children were in Mumbai. His work was in Mumbai. His political activities were in Mumbai. He was not allowed to enter the city because of that externment order. And the Bombay High Court said the externment order was illegal, and quashed it. But nothing followed from that. It was just a simple quashing. I believe that is where accountability comes in. Shouldn’t the executive, the Commissioner of Police or whoever it was who passed that externment order, have been made to pay for it, by way of compensation to this person, or by some other method?

The second judgment is from the Delhi High Court. A father and a son were arrested by the police and beaten up. The father was released the same evening. The son was not released; the next morning, the son was found dead, hanging. And the defence given by the police was — is material for committing suicide so easily available in a police station, that you tell a person, okay, in case you want to commit suicide, here is the material available? The Delhi High Court held — and I think rightly

• that custodial death is still actionable, and it gave compensation to the family, for whatever it is worth. That is where accountability comes in
• that you have deprived a person of his life illegally, unconstitutionally, so compensate him for that.

The Bombay High Court, according to me, should have done it. The Delhi High Court has done it. And this entire controversy about the SIR

• not being able to vote, not having fundamental rights, not getting welfare benefits, and all that — somebody has to be held And I think we need to discuss that as well. Thank you.

Related:

The Battle of Belonging: Why India’s Passport Controversy Matters

Not What the Court Decided: Re-reading the Bombay High Court’s passport judgment

Rejected as Voter, also denied a Passport? Here is how ‘New India’ deals with exclusion complaints under SIR: Former editor, Telegraph, R Rajagopal

The post Justice Madan Lokur: ‘Passport Reduced to a Bus Ticket’, ECI an “Empire within an Empire’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to The Indian Express, Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the FRRO to verify the identity of Abdul Rahim and ascertain whether he is the same individual who was convicted by a sessions court in Uttar Pradesh in a case alleging illegal entry from Bangladesh. The conviction is currently under challenge before the Allahabad High Court.

In an interim order, the copy of which is yet to be made available, the court restrained the authorities from deporting Rahim until the next date of hearing, fixed for July 14. The court also directed the FRRO to obtain instructions regarding the pending proceedings before the Allahabad High Court and determine whether those proceedings relate to the same person against whom the present deportation order has been passed.

Detained during verification drive

As reported by Indian Express, Rahim stated in his petition that he was born on April 14, 1979, in New Seemapuri, Delhi, and has lived and worked in India throughout his life. He was detained on March 5, 2026, by the Parappana Agrahara police during a drive to identify suspected undocumented Bangladeshi migrants and was subsequently handed over to the FRRO.

On the same day, the FRRO passed an order under Section 7(2)(f) of the Foreigners Act, 2025, read with Paragraph 8 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, restricting his movement and directing that he reside at the Utile Foundation detention centre in Kothanur, Bengaluru. The FRRO order identified him as “Md. Rahim Howladar, son of Md. Motaleb Howladar,” and proceeded on the assumption that he was a foreign national.

Citizenship documents produced before court

Appearing for Rahim, advocate Clifton D. Rozario argued that his client is an Indian citizen by birth and produced several public documents, including a birth certificate, passport, voter identity card, Aadhaar card, PAN card, driving licence and records relating to his family members.

The petition contended that the detention order was passed without notice, without an opportunity of hearing and without any meaningful inquiry into his citizenship status. It alleged violations of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and stated that the detention had disrupted Rahim’s livelihood and caused hardship to his wife and infant child.

Connection to Uttar Pradesh conviction

The case has an additional layer of complexity because Rahim was convicted in 2012 by an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Ghaziabad under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for allegedly entering and residing in India without valid documents. In that case, he was identified as “Abdul Rahim, son of Shah Jamal, resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh.”

According to the petition, Indian Express reported, the conviction was largely based on the statutory burden under the Foreigners Act requiring the accused to establish citizenship, and on the finding that the documents produced were not satisfactory. Rahim appealed the conviction before the Allahabad High Court in 2012, where the appeal was admitted and he was granted bail. The appeal remains pending.

Rozario argued that the present detention and deportation proceedings amount to double jeopardy, prohibited under Article 20 of the Constitution, which protects individuals from being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence.

Business and family life in Bengaluru

Rahim told the court that he moved from Delhi to Bengaluru in 2014 and established a waste management and scrap trading business through a government-registered proprietorship. He also holds a GST registration certificate issued under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

As reported by Times of India, he argued that he has built his family and economic life in Bengaluru and that the deportation proceedings were initiated without even issuing him a prior notice.

Court seeks identity verification before deportation

Observing that the petition raises issues requiring factual verification, the Karnataka High Court directed the FRRO to ascertain Rahim’s identity before taking any coercive action. The court’s interim protection will remain in force until the matter is heard again on July 14.

According to the report of Scroll, the petition seeks quashing of the FRRO order and Rahim’s release from custody, while the court’s immediate focus remains on determining whether the detainee is indeed the same person involved in the pending Uttar Pradesh proceedings and whether the deportation order has been issued against the correct individual.

Related:

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

Gauhati HC upholds foreigner declaration, reasserts harsh reverse burden under colonial-era Foreigners Act

No ‘Inherited’ Foreigner Status: Gauhati HC protects children from automatic declaration

Gauhati High Court directs State to file affidavit on alleged deportation of Doyjan Bibi without due process

When a Spelling Error Can Cost Citizenship: Supreme Court stays deportation of five Assam women

From Forest Settlers to ‘Encroachers’: The eviction crisis in Assam’s Taungya Villages

Assam, the third state to pass UCC: Gender justice or targeted communalism the aim?

The post Karnataka HC stays FRRO deportation order over disputed citizenship claim appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Background of the case and procedural history

 The appellants, Mayadhar Nayak and Baina Nayak, were daily wagers belonging to the Scheduled Castes, who served the Government Treasury Branch of SBI in Bhubaneswar as cleaners and sweepers for approximately three decades, starting in 1994 and 1995, respectively.

The appellants had previously approached the Court in 1999 regarding non-regularisation of service and denial of pay on par with temporary employees. This produced an interim protective order on October 28, 1999 where the Court said, “If there is work for the Petitioners, they may not be retrenched.” The Court had directed the Bank to pay them remuneration under the Minimum Wages Act and be allowed to continue working as long as work was available, without being substituted by new hands. The Court also asked the bank to consider their cases for regularisation if any vacancies arose.

In 2007, the appellants again approached the Court claiming that the Bank was seeking to fill up the posts of Sweepers and other menial staff without considering their claim for appointment. This time too, the Court asked the bank to consider their cases for regularisation if any vacancies arose, keeping in view the length of their engagement and the services.

In terms of the above order, Appellants were paid on September 17, 2021 the arrears of minimum wages quantified at Rs.1, 61,619/- , each, for the period between April, 2017 & June, 2021.

Around five years later, in 2012, the appellants filed another petition for their recognition as temporary employees, pay parity under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, release of bonus for the financial year 2011–12, and extension of all temporary service benefits as granted to similarly situated employees of the Bank.

In 2020, the appellants another petition seeking regularisation of their services, contending that the Bank had regularised the services of a similarly situated employee engaged as a ‘Liftman’ at the time, the appellants were receiving a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.16,406/- while other temporary employees of the Bank were receiving Rs.27,443/-.

On June 20 2025, a single judge bench Justice S.K. Panigrahi which was hearing both the petitions together dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions finding all their claims unsustainable. The judgment read:

“While this Court does not disregard the long and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioners, it is well-settled that mere length of service does not by itself confer a right to regularisation. The consistent position in law is that engagement on a daily wage or casual basis, however prolonged, cannot mature into a claim for regular appointment in the absence of sanctioned posts and adherence to a lawful selection process.” (Para 18).

In 2022, the Bank had sought permission to retrench the Appellants as being surplus workers.

On July 19, 2025, the appellants were retrenched by the bank as surplus workers under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and were paid roughly Rs. 3.31 lakh each as statutory compensation and payment due to a policy shift toward outsourcing driven by IT developments in banking.

The division bench presently hearing the case, had to decide whether

• the appellants, after nearly 30 years of service were entitled to regularisation and consequential monetary benefits,
• the previous court orders, which only directed the payment of minimum wages and conditional consideration for vacancies, barred the appellants’ current claims for regularisation, and
• what constitutes fair ‘remediable and reparative justice’ for manual labourers in an era of outsourcing and AI, when regularisation might impose an excessive financial burden on the employer.

High Court’s intervention

 The Division Bench partially allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Single Judge through an order on May 18, 2026. In that it said:

“There appears to be a prima facie case for granting relief to the Appellants herein, who admittedly have put in service as Sweepers, first Appellant from 1994, and the second from 1995. The law, as it now stands in the June of its life, tilts in favour of the Appellant’s herein, inasmuch as, arguably, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has missed the march”

• Declined Regularisation

The Court declined to order regularisation. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court’s rulings in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam (2025) but the Court noted it would cause the Bank to bear the brunt of losing huge money and that the appellants’ prior cases only resulted in a direction for minimum wages. At the same time, the Court observed that the appellants’ earlier rounds of litigation had not secured them much real benefit, since those orders only directed payment of minimum wages, which SBI had already paid. Because of this, the Bench held that the regularisation claim in the present appeals was, to an extent, barred by the principle of res judicata.

The Court then referred to a coordinate Bench’s order in Secretary, Berhampur Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Bhaba Sundar Dalai (2026), where Rs 10 lakh had been awarded as compensation in lieu of regularisation. However, the Bench distinguished that case as there was no res judicata bar in it, and the employees’ service was comparatively shorter.

The Court took note of two mitigating factors specific to the present appellants, that they had roughly ten years left before superannuation, and that both belonged to Scheduled Castes, as relevant considerations in shaping the final relief.

• Justification for the Compensation Amount

In the May order, the Court had suggested both the sides to negotiate a settlement with fairness and justice. The SBI proposed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to each of the appellants to settle the dispute. However, the appellants rejected the bank’s offer and during a personal interaction with the Court, they stated they would settle for Rs. 25 lakh each

The Court evaluated both proposals and described the Bank’s Rs. 5 lakh offer inadequate. It said:

“Rupees 5 lakh offer made by the Bank as compensation is too frugal to be mentioned, when bread is costlier than blood, Rupee value now-a-days dwindling down. The Appellants, who have given their sweat & blood, cannot seek gainful employment elsewhere at their present declining age. They were working only as sweepers with not much education nor with due social status.” (Para 7.3.2)

Instead, the Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 20, 00,000 (Twenty Lakh) to each appellant in lieu of regularisation and continued service.

While deciding the compensation amount, it remarked:

“In the AI era, we are not sure that they would be able to eke out their livelihood, having spent prime of their life blood in the menial job all these years. Even Rs.10 lakh compensation awarded by the Coordinate Bench to the workmen of a Cooperative Bank would not constitute a solid yardstick for determining what should be paid to these poor persons. Should Appellants be regularized in service, it would incur more expenditure than otherwise.” (Para 7.3.2)

The Bank was ordered to pay the total Rs. 40 lakh within eight weeks. Any delay would trigger an interest penalty (1% for the first month and 2% thereafter), which the Court directed should be recovered personally from the erring bank officials.

The full judgment may be read here:

Why Regularisation Never Came

 The Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that designates certain practices as unfair labour practices includes:

 “10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”

 For thirty years, and over 240 days annually, the appellants discharged their duty in continuity. For context, the Government Treasury Branch of the Bank occupies more than 11,000 square feet, spread over three levels comprising the upper basement, ground floor, and first floor. The premises include eight toilets and six urinals. The Appellants had been performing cleaning duties in the said premises along with outsourced employees.

The denial of regularisation and long-term benefits to contractual or temporary workers is a heavily litigated issue in India, and not unique to the present case. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) the Court clarified that temporary, daily wage, or contractual employees do not possess a legal or fundamental right to be made permanent. It held that a court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to make a worker permanent because the worker has no enforceable legal right to such a status, and the State has no legal duty to provide it outside of established rules. However, the Court also provided a narrow exception as a one-time measure for workers who have completed at least 10 years of service. Regularisation, it held, may be permitted where the appointment was irregular (meaning it suffered from a procedural flaw) but not illegal.

In Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court said that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. The judgment read:

“The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.” (Para 13)

In Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union (2024), the Court held that workers engaged to perform work of regular and perennial nature cannot be treated as contract labour.

Similarly, last year, in Shripal vs Nagar Nigam (2025), the Supreme Court while acknowledging the precedence in Umadevi, emphasised that workers performing duties that are integral, ongoing, and perennial to an institution’s functions should not be relegated to perpetual daily-wage status. The judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath said:

“While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.” (Para 26).

“Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement.” (Para 15).

To continue extracting regular labour for decades while pleading a lack of sanctioned strength is a position the Court found legally and morally unsustainable in Dharam Singh vs State of UP (2025).

In January this year, in Bhola Nath vs The State Of Jharkhand (2026), the Court while finding the State’s refusal to regularise the workers who had served for over a decade to be a clear derogation of equality principles, directed the State to forthwith regularise the appellants against the sanctioned posts they were initially appointed to, granting them all consequential service benefits

Hence, while long service alone does not guarantee automatic regularisation, the Supreme Court has ruled that continuing workers in identical, perpetual roles on temporary wages while denying them benefits can be considered arbitrary and discriminatory.

During the litigation, the appellants in present case- Mayadhar Nayak supported his wife, two children, and a father aged about 80 years. On the other hand, Baina Nayak was the sole caretaker of a mentally and physically disabled child and another son, all of whom dependent on his meagre income of about Rs 16,000.

On paper, the Nayaks had reason to expect a better outcome. They approached the High Court as early as 1999 where a coordinate bench even secured them protection against retrenchment in 1999, and in 2007 the Court directed SBI to consider them if sweeper vacancies were filled. Yet each of these interventions never fruitioned into regularisation.

When two vacancies did arise after the 2007/2008 orders, SBI chose to outsource the cleaning function rather than fill the posts departmentally citing a policy shift attributed to changes in banking operations. Because this outsourcing decision was never independently challenged, it stood, and it extinguished the very condition on which the appellants’ continued engagement depended. Rather than terminating long-serving casual workers outright, the restructuring of the underlying work itself dissolved the employee’s along with the post. By the time the Division Bench heard the 2025 appeals, it held that the earlier 2007/2008 orders had already adjudicated.

Compensation and Delayed Justice

 Regularisation would have given the appellants a pension, medical benefits, promotional prospects, and crucially continued income until superannuation. A one-time payment, however large, is a terminal substitute.

 None of this is to say compensation is worthless. Rs20 lakh each is a materially significant, life-altering sum, and the Court’s insistence on interest for delay and personal liability of erring officials for that interest is a genuinely useful enforcement mechanism. But as a systemic remedy for decades of institutionalised casualisation, compensation calculated case-by-case, in peculiar facts and circumstances, explicitly disclaiming precedential value, plausibly should not substitute for either a binding regularisation scheme or statutory reform that removes employers’ incentive to keep essential, perennial work permanently temporary! While salary or lump-sum compensation prevents destitution, it does not cure systemic exploitation. Compensation is at best a consolation, and workers deserve justice, not just money. Compensation does little to restore lost career opportunities, dignity and security.

 “The Appellants have been fighting the legal battles since about three decades, complete justice eluding for one or the other reason,” acknowledged the Orissa High Court in the present case.

This is not unusual. Delay is a common feature of our judicial system. Labour disputes in India typically take somewhere between seven to ten years to reach a final judgment. Pendency of labour disputes in general for long period of time leads to frustration among workers.

The Delhi High Court recently flagged this delay directly, describing the backlog of pending labour matters before constitutional courts as a “sorry state of affairs” in the constitutional courts where the “poor labourers are forced to fight tooth and nail to get justice for themselves”. Reported the Indian Express.

Labour Law in the AI-era

 Tucked into the judgment’s compensation calculus, the Bench doubted the appellants could “eke out their livelihood… in the AI era,” having spent their working lives in menial labour with little education. This, on one level, was an acknowledgment that older, low-skilled workers pushed out of long-term employment have genuinely diminished prospects of re-entering the labour market. But it is worth reading as part of a broader, nascent judicial awareness that automation and technological change will compound the harm of insecure employment for low-skill, manual roles.

A public employer that outsources or automates a function bears a one-time restructuring cost but the displaced worker bears a lifetime cost, often without the education or capital to pivot into new work. The Court’s remark implicitly recognises this asymmetry, even if it does not translate it into a legal standard.

“Perennial nature of work” as a legal test may itself be eroding. Much of the jurisprudence on regularisation and contract labour assumes that if work is genuinely permanent, it should attract permanent labour protections. But work that was perennial for thirty years can be redefined as time-limited or eliminable through outsourcing plus technology, without ever being tested against the perennial nature standard in a contested proceeding.

Indian courts have long tied the right to livelihood, and by extension dignity, to Article 21. It would perhaps be an overreach to describe this as an emerging AI-era jurisprudence. But future litigants representing displaced casual workers in automating sectors like banking, toll collection, municipal sanitation may well cite this observation as an early judicial acknowledgment that technological displacement deserves distinct legal weight. The judges however have made it clear that this order is based on the facts of this case and they do not intend to make it a binding precedent or a Rule of Parity.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this judgement primer has been worked on by Tanishka Shah)

Related

India’s New Labour Codes: A critical appraisal

Labour Rights Endangered: Four labour codes passed without worker or state governments’ consultation or consent

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

Lucknow: Caste hierarchies & contract labour exploitation among sanitation workers

The post The Orissa High Court awards them Rs 20 lakh each to two SBI Sweepers appeared first on SabrangIndia.