According to The Hindu, farmer groups under the banner of the Desh Bachao Morcha, an umbrella platform comprising unions from several states, organised coordinated motorcycle rallies across Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Similar demonstrations were also held in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand as part of a nationwide mobilisation against the proposed trade agreement.

Farmer leaders have argued that the proposed agreement extends far beyond the import and export of a handful of commodities. They contend that negotiations could encompass agriculture, dairy, industry, digital trade, services, investment, energy, intellectual property rights and broader market access, making it a far-reaching economic arrangement with potentially significant implications for multiple sectors.

A major concern raised by the protesting organisations is the lack of transparency surrounding the negotiations. As reported by The Hindu, Desh Bachao Morcha coordinator Sarwan Singh Pandher questioned why the complete text of the proposed agreement had not been placed in the public domain, arguing that stakeholders were being asked to accept an arrangement whose full implications remained unknown.

Farmer leaders have repeatedly warned that the United States has long sought greater access to India’s agricultural and dairy markets. According to them, any reduction in import duties or easing of market restrictions could expose Indian farmers, particularly small and marginal cultivators, to competition from heavily subsidised American agricultural producers, adversely affecting domestic agriculture, dairy farming and small-scale industries.

The organisations have urged the Union government to prioritise the interests of farmers, agricultural labourers, small traders and domestic industries over external trade commitments. They have also called upon the Centre to safeguard India’s food and economic sovereignty by refraining from entering into any agreement that they believe could undermine rural livelihoods.

The protests have brought together a broad coalition of farmer organisations across states. The Hindu reported that Punjab witnessed participation from groups including the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political), the Azad Kisan Morcha, the Bharatiya Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Organisation and the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Boka Singh Mansa). In Haryana, organisations such as BKU (Chaduni), Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Morcha Haryana and BKU Shaheed Bhagat Singh joined the demonstrations, while farmer groups in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh also staged coordinated protests.

Warning of an escalation if their concerns remain unaddressed, farmer leaders announced that the ongoing mobilisation would culminate in a large “Maha Rally” in New Delhi on July 21.

The agitation gathered further momentum during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Punjab, with several organisations staging demonstrations and raising black flags while reiterating demands for a statutory guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP). As reported by The Hindu, activists of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KMSC) burned an effigy of the Central government near Amritsar’s Golden Gate, accusing the Centre of pursuing policies that favour corporate interests over farmers and agricultural workers.

KMSC leaders also alleged that district president Salwinder Singh Jania had been placed under house detention to prevent his participation in the protests, warning that such actions would only strengthen the ongoing agitation. They further demanded that the Prime Minister publicly explain how the proposed India–US trade agreement would benefit Indian farmers and agricultural labourers, insisting that any policy encouraging greater corporate control over agriculture was unacceptable.

The organisations simultaneously reiterated their long-standing demand for a legal guarantee of MSP, describing it as indispensable for protecting farmers against fluctuating market prices and ensuring stable agricultural incomes.

Beyond the trade agreement, protesters also criticised the Punjab government’s land pooling policy, alleging that it could facilitate the acquisition of fertile agricultural land for commercial development at the expense of cultivators. Farmer leaders asserted that they would continue resisting the policy until it was withdrawn.

The Kisan Mazdoor Morcha also organised district-level protests across Punjab during the Prime Minister’s visit. According to The Hindu, Sarwan Singh Pandher stated that the organisation would simultaneously raise issues relating to farm loan waivers, the proposed trade agreement, the release of Bandi Singhs, Punjab’s representation in the Bhakra Beas Management Board and the state’s riparian rights over river waters.

Separately, The Indian Express reported that thousands of farmers affiliated with the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Rajewal) organised a large bike and car rally from Mohali to Chandigarh, with more than 500 motorcycles, cars and jeeps participating in the procession. The demonstration witnessed participation from all 23 districts of Punjab, prompting extensive traffic diversions and heightened security arrangements across Chandigarh and adjoining areas.

Addressing the gathering, BKU (Rajewal) president Balbir Singh Rajewal described the proposed India–US Free Trade Agreement as the farmers’ foremost concern, arguing that Indian agriculture would struggle to compete with heavily subsidised agricultural producers in developed economies if the agreement were finalised. He warned that sectors such as agriculture, dairy, poultry and allied rural industries could suffer severe economic consequences.

The rally also highlighted broader concerns affecting Punjab’s agrarian economy. BKU leaders drew attention to deteriorating groundwater quality and increasing contamination by heavy metals, citing health concerns and referring to data indicating the growing burden of cancer in the state. They further accused political parties of remaining preoccupied with electoral politics while neglecting structural challenges confronting farmers, including land acquisition policies, resource management and the proposed trade agreement.

Following the rally, representatives submitted separate memorandums to the Prime Minister, through the Punjab Governor, and to the Punjab Chief Minister, outlining both national and state-specific demands and seeking immediate government intervention.

The protests continued to expand over the following days. As reported by Deccan Chronicle, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) organised demonstrations at more than forty toll plazas across Punjab, allowing vehicles to pass without collecting toll charges as a symbolic act of protest against both the Punjab government’s land pooling policy and the proposed India–US trade agreement.

Farmer leaders participating in the toll plaza demonstrations alleged that the amended land pooling policy sought to transfer fertile agricultural land to corporate interests while simultaneously expressing concern that the proposed trade agreement would adversely affect agriculture, dairy and poultry sectors. They demanded that these sectors be excluded entirely from any future trade pact and warned that the agitation would intensify if both the Centre and the Punjab government failed to address their concerns. Taken together, the protests represent one of the most recent coordinated farmer mobilisations, combining opposition to the proposed India–US trade agreement with broader demands concerning MSP, agricultural policy, land acquisition, indebtedness and rural governance.

Related:

Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers

“₹4 a Kilo for a Crop That Costs ₹20 to Grow”: Nashik’s onion farmers erupt in protest over deepening price crisis

February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India

Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers

The post India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to The Indian Express, the order was passed by City Magistrate Kuldeep Singh under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Vikas Tyagi, a former provincial coordinator of the Bajrang Dal, who alleged that a mosque had been illegally constructed within the Collectorate premises—a sensitive government complex where administrative and confidential official work is carried out. The complaint also alleged that the property was being used for commercial purposes, with portions of the premises rented to private occupants and a post office operating from the site.

Revenue inquiry and allegations

Following the complaint, the Revenue Department initiated an inquiry. In March 2025, a Lekhpal (revenue official) filed an application before the City Magistrate alleging that Abdul Hamid, described as the mosque’s manager and maulvi, was in unauthorised occupation of government land. Notices were issued to the respondents in April 2025, and their objections were filed in June 2025.

The revenue authorities contended that the land forms part of the Collectorate campus and is recorded in official revenue records as government property. According to the petition, the building originally functioned as a rest house for litigants visiting the Collectorate, but was subsequently occupied by the respondents, who allegedly converted portions of it into a mosque.

The petition further alleged that rooms on both the ground and first floors had been occupied, namaz was being offered there, several rooms had been rented out for residential purposes, and rent was being collected from tenants as well as from a post office operating from the premises.

Authorities also alleged that unauthorised construction had been carried out to convert part of the government building into a religious structure. The inquiry reportedly concluded that the occupants possessed no licence, permission or legal authority either to occupy the premises, allow third parties to reside there, or convert the building into a place of worship.

The revenue department further challenged the respondents’ reliance on a purported communication issued by the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow, alleging that the document was forged. It argued that the property has consistently been recorded in revenue records as Kachahri (Collectorate) and Kothiyat land, rather than as waqf or religious property.

The authorities also maintained that the Sunni Central Waqf Board has no legal authority to declare government land as waqf property. Although the respondents claimed to be the mosque’s mutawalli and maulvi, the petition asserted that they failed to produce documentary evidence establishing either their status or ownership rights over the property.

In addition to seeking eviction, the petitioner requested recovery of rent allegedly collected from tenants, penal rent, and all income allegedly earned through the unauthorised occupation, together with 12 per cent compound interest, to be deposited into the government treasury.

Mosque committee disputes government’s claim

The respondents denied the allegations and argued that the State had failed to establish ownership of the disputed property. They contended that the revenue records relied upon by the authorities merely reflected the physical nature or classification of the land and did not conclusively determine title.

They further alleged that the proceedings were initiated with the intention of unlawfully taking possession of the mosque and its adjoining land. According to the respondents, the petitioner had suppressed material facts, withheld relevant revenue records, and attempted to mislead the court.

Mutawalli Tanveer Ahmed maintained that the mosque is approximately 150 years old and stated that the management committee intends to challenge the order by filing a revision petition.

Court finds occupation unauthorised

After considering the material placed before it, the City Magistrate held that the respondents had failed to establish any lawful right or title over the disputed property. The court observed that Khasra No. 539 has consistently been recorded in revenue records as Collectorate/Kachahri land since Fasli Years 1324 and 1359, as well as in earlier records. On that basis, it concluded that the land belongs to the State government and that occupation without legal authority amounts to unauthorised occupation under the 1972 Act.

Taking into account the prolonged occupation of the 315-square-metre parcel, the court directed that compensation be calculated for a period of 70 years, commencing from Fasli Year 1359, in accordance with the prescribed statutory formula. The resulting amount was assessed at approximately ₹6.41 crore.

City Magistrate Kuldeep Singh told The Indian Express that the occupants have been granted 30 days to vacate the premises, failing which the administration will proceed with eviction.

Part of wider disputes over religious structures

The Saharanpur order comes amid a series of disputes involving religious structures alleged to have been constructed on public land in Uttar Pradesh. Last month, according to The Indian Express, the Varanasi Division of Northern Railways issued a notice directing the removal of a mosque located near Gate No. 1 of Kashi railway station, asserting that the structure stands on railway land. The mosque’s managing body, Anjuman Intizamia Masajid Varanasi, has challenged the notice, describing the proposed action as illegal.

The controversy also follows earlier demolition proceedings concerning the Madni Mosque in Kushinagar district. In February 2025, authorities demolished a portion of the mosque after alleging that it had been constructed on encroached land. The mosque committee disputed the allegation, asserting that the land had been lawfully purchased and had secured interim protection from the High Court until the expiry of the stay.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh authorities in contempt proceedings alleging that the demolition violated the Court’s November 13, 2024 directions restraining demolition drives across the country without prior notice and an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings remain pending.

Related:

Public Purpose and Places of Worship: Allahabad HC’s Dalmandi verdict

Rebuild or Compensate: Nagpur HC confronts NMC over ‘bulldozer’ demolition in riot case

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

“Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre

The post Court orders removal of mosque from Saharanpur Collectorate premises appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Viewed narrowly, the judgment settles a local and specific legal controversy. Viewed more broadly, however, it speaks to an increasingly recurring constitutional question: what happens when the State’s power of eminent domain intersects with historic places of worship located within politically and religiously contested urban spaces especially when these culturally and religiously are those of the religious minorities? That question cannot be answered by reading the judgment in isolation.

The litigation arose from the continuing expansion of the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor, a project that has dramatically transformed the Varanasi urban landscape surrounding one of Hinduism’s oldest temples. The political patronage by a  specific expansionist, militarist interpretation of the faith (RSS-BJP-VHP combine) is not irrelevant. Hindusim in its purest practiced form has been over the centuries not linear or semitic, by vesting authenticity of faith on three north-Indian shrines –Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi Viswanath—lies a structured and political effort to semitise the faith that was once localised and eclectic and control power, finance and practice.[1]

Unsurprisingly therefore, with the contours of the Indian state altering since the early 1990s and more sharply and substantively since 2014, the building of shrines at these three sites has drawn political, financial and state support. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power with the steely organisational support of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and its more vocal/rabid wings (Bajrang Dal-BD and Vishwa Hindu Parishad-VHP) in the state of Uttar Pradesh in 2017.[2] Even three years prior to this, after the regime change at the Centre (2014), pressure was brought on the Varanasi district administration regarding the Kashi Viswanath shrine.[3]

Since its announcement, the Corridor has been presented by the Uttar Pradesh Government as an exercise in heritage conservation, pilgrimage facilitation and urban renewal. At the same time, it has generated sustained criticism from residents, traders, historians, architects, conservationists and civil society organisations, who have questioned the scale of demolition, displacement and the irreversible alteration of one of India’s oldest living cities.

Consequently, the Allahabad High Court’s interpretation of the Places of Worship Act (POW), 1991 is not simply a technical pronouncement on statutory construction. It is a judicial intervention in a redevelopment project that has, for several years, borne a clear majoritarian stamp: an intersection of constitutional law, heritage conservation, minority rights, urban planning and contemporary politics.

The Kashi Corridor is more than an infrastructure project

Few redevelopment projects in independent India have altered the physical and symbolic landscape of a historic city as dramatically as the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor. Conceived as an ambitious project connecting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple directly to the ghats of the Ganga, the redevelopment sought to replace the centuries-old maze of narrow lanes surrounding the temple with wide pedestrian corridors, plazas and public spaces capable of accommodating millions of pilgrims. The State justified the project as necessary to improve accessibility, crowd management, disaster preparedness and civic infrastructure around one of India’s most visited pilgrimage centres. Yet the area selected for redevelopment was not an empty tract awaiting urban renewal.

The neighbourhood surrounding the Kashi Vishwanath Temple represents one of the oldest continuously inhabited urban settlements in South Asia. For centuries, the sacred geography of Kashi evolved organically through a dense network of ancient and historic local temples of prime religious and cultural significance, shrines, mosques, markets, residences, dharamshalas, akharas, courtyards and interconnected gullies. Its heritage lay not merely in monumental religious structures but equally in the lived urban fabric that connected them. Historians have long described the city as a layered civilisational landscape in which Hindu, Muslim and other communities inhabited overlapping social and religious spaces, creating an urban ecology unlike that of most planned cities.

This evocative report on the issue reflects the majoritarian make-over of the Kashi-Viswanath Dham Corridor, not just in terms of a brute and uni-directional take-over of culture, art, faith and individual rights, but also as a clear-cut political design to re-shape the understanding and practice of the Hindu faith. “The ruling (BJP) government and Modi, who represents Varanasi in the Lok Sabha, Dharma Vyaparis (religion traders) instead of Dharma Adhikaris (religion upholders).” The report may be read here. The Indian Express had then quoted Rajendra Tiwari, the former Mahant of the same Kashi Viswanath temple here:  “Every part of the country is represented across these Ganga ghats. Where we are sitting is Lahori Tola, where people from Lahore came and settled. Then there are areas where the Bengalis settled, the South Indians, the Marathis.” They are changing the “vaastu” of the place, he says. “Yeh dharam adhikari nahin, dharam vypari hein (They don’t serve religion, they trade in religion).”

It is in this question that the recent judgement of the Allahabad High Court that clinically ignores. Adopting an approach that is jurisprudentially analysed by scholars as legal formalism (or mechanically applied jurisprudence), such an approach only narrowly protects the rule of law while turning a judicial ostrich like approach away from sociological jurisprudence and legal realism.

By completely ignoring the context of this aggressive and politically intentioned Corridor development and land acquisition, the Allahabad High Court a constitutional court has tragically obliterated the socio-political-administrative background to these demolitions and acquisitions. In leveraging the POW Act of 1991 to do so, the Court has also subtly but surely diluted the content and “Aims and Objectives” of the law.

It is in this overall context that the Dham Corridor “re=development” needs to be understood. Through the period that it took place, the redevelopment therefore triggered concerns extending beyond ordinary questions of land acquisition. Reports documenting the implementation of the project described the acquisition and demolition of hundreds of residential and commercial properties around the temple precinct. Local residents spoke of the disappearance of neighbourhoods that had existed for generations. Conservationists questioned whether the pursuit of monumental redevelopment had come at the cost of preserving Varanasi’s historic urban morphology. Architects debated whether the widening of lanes and creation of expansive public plazas fundamentally altered the cultural identity of a city historically defined by its intimate and densely layered built environment.

The project also generated controversy over the treatment of numerous smaller shrines, temples and archaeological remains reportedly discovered during demolition. While the temple administration maintained that significant structures had been carefully preserved wherever possible, it has been argued that redevelopment had prioritised visual grandeur over conservation of the city’s accumulated architectural heritage. The debate reflected competing visions of heritage itself: whether it should be understood principally through monumental architecture or through the preservation of living neighbourhoods that had evolved over centuries.

Redevelopment within a politically contested landscape

The constitutional significance of the Corridor cannot be understood without recognising another reality. The redevelopment has unfolded alongside continuing legal and political contestation surrounding the Gyanvapi Mosque, situated immediately adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In recent years, the mosque has become the subject of multiple civil suits, archaeological surveys and “competing” historical claims concerning the existence of a pre-existing temple beneath the present structure. Those proceedings, in turn, form part of a broader national debate concerning historical religious sites and the continued relevance of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, whose constitutional validity is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Detailed reports on Gyanvapi Mosque, its history and the case may be read here, here, here, here and here.

Detailed reports on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 may be read here, here, here and here.

Detailed report on “contested” Mosques and Places of Worship Act may be read here, here and here.

The present litigation did not concern ownership of the Gyanvapi Mosque, nor did it involve competing historical claims regarding religious identity. Nevertheless, it emerged within this broader environment of heightened contestation, where disputes concerning places of worship are rarely perceived as isolated property disputes. Instead, they frequently engage larger constitutional questions concerning secularism, equality, historical memory and the relationship between religion and State power.

It is precisely because of this context that the Allahabad High Court’s interpretation of the Places of Worship Act assumes significance beyond the immediate facts before it. A judgment concerning six mosques in Dalmandi inevitably contributes to the evolving jurisprudence governing one of the Constitution’s most sensitive areas. As said before, it slants and limits the scope of application of a law enacted in 1991 for precisely this purpose: containment of aggressive politico-majoriatrian claims arounds places of worship.

Why the Places of Worship Act matters

To appreciate the importance of the Court’s ruling, it is necessary to revisit the constitutional purpose behind the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The legislation was enacted at a moment of extraordinary communal tension. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, disputes concerning historical places of worship increasingly became instruments of political mobilisation, culminating in the movement surrounding the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya. Parliament responded by enacting the Places of Worship Act to ensure that, with the sole exception of the Ayodhya dispute, the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947 would remain unchanged.

The statute represented more than an ordinary property law. It was a legislative affirmation that independent India would not permit historical grievances to become the basis for contemporary contests over religious identity. By freezing the religious status of places of worship at the moment of Independence, Parliament sought to preserve communal harmony and reinforce the constitutional commitment to secularism embodied in the Preamble and the guarantees of equality and religious freedom.

Nearly three decades later, in the Babri Masjid demolition-Ayodhya judgment (2019), the Supreme Court described the Act as a legislative intervention that safeguards the secular character of the Republic by preventing historical wrongs, whether real or perceived, from being reopened through present-day litigation. The Court characterised the legislation as imposing a constitutional obligation of non-retrogression, ensuring that independent India’s future would not be continually reshaped by unresolved disputes from its past. It is against that constitutional backdrop that the Dalmandi dispute reached the Allahabad High Court.

Detailed reports on Babri Masjid demolition-Ayodhya judgment may be read here, here, here and here.

The question before the Court was not whether a mosque could be converted into a temple. The statute answers that unequivocally. Rather, it was whether Parliament intended the protection afforded by the Act to extend further, shielding places of worship from compulsory acquisition itself, or whether acquisition for a genuine public purpose remained outside the Act’s reach.

That seemingly narrow distinction lies at the heart of one of the most consequential interpretations of the Places of Worship Act delivered by any constitutional court since the legislation came into force.

The Dalmandi redevelopment project

The controversy before the Allahabad High Court arose from the Uttar Pradesh Government’s proposal to widen and beautify Dalmandi, one of Varanasi’s oldest commercial neighbourhoods situated approximately 800 metres from the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. As part of the continuing expansion of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor, the State proposed to acquire numerous residential and commercial properties along the route to facilitate smoother movement of pilgrims and improve connectivity between the temple precinct and adjoining areas.

Unlike the earlier phases of the Corridor project, which had already witnessed extensive demolition of residential and commercial structures surrounding the temple, the proposed redevelopment of Dalmandi raised an additional legal question. The proposed alignment included six centuries-old mosques: Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran and Masjid Sangamarmar. According to the petitioners, these mosques were likely to be acquired and demolished as part of the road-widening exercise.

While urban redevelopment frequently involves difficult choices between public infrastructure and private property, the inclusion of functioning places of worship transformed what might otherwise have been an ordinary land acquisition dispute into a constitutional controversy. It raised a question that courts had not previously addressed in any substantial detail: does the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 merely prohibit changes in the religious identity of places of worship, or does it also prevent the State from acquiring them altogether?

That question assumed particular significance because the litigation unfolded against the backdrop of continuing constitutional debates over the meaning and future of the Places of Worship Act itself. Several petitions challenging the validity of the legislation, or seeking a narrower interpretation of its provisions, are presently pending before the Supreme Court. Although the Allahabad High Court was not called upon to determine the constitutional validity of the statute, its interpretation of the Act inevitably contributes to the developing jurisprudence on one of India’s most consequential secularism laws.

The petition: More than a challenge to acquisition

The writ petition was filed by six tenants and shopkeepers carrying on business in Dalmandi. Their immediate concern was practical and personal: the proposed acquisition threatened the closure of their establishments and the loss of their livelihoods. Yet the petition deliberately framed the dispute as extending beyond commercial interests. It argued that the redevelopment would simultaneously extinguish historic places of worship that had existed long before Independence and therefore enjoyed statutory protection under the Places of Worship Act.

The petitioners contended that the six mosques proposed to be acquired had retained their religious character continuously since before August 15, 1947, bringing them squarely within the protective ambit of the 1991 legislation. Parliament, they argued, had enacted the Act to preserve precisely such sites from future interference. If pre-Independence places of worship could nevertheless be acquired and demolished in the name of redevelopment, the central objective of the legislation would stand substantially diluted.

Their challenge therefore rested on a purposive understanding of the statute. According to the petitioners, the Act could not be reduced to a prohibition against physically converting a mosque into a temple or vice versa. Such a narrow reading, they argued, ignored the broader legislative purpose of preserving religious sites from becoming casualties of contemporary political or administrative decisions. A mosque that had been acquired and demolished might not have been converted into another religious structure, but its existence as a functioning place of worship would nevertheless come to an end. From that perspective, acquisition could undermine the statutory protection just as effectively as formal conversion.

The petition also invoked broader constitutional guarantees. The petitioners argued that the proposed acquisition violated Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution by threatening both their right to livelihood and the community’s right to continue worship at long-standing mosques. They further questioned whether the project genuinely satisfied the requirement of public purpose, asserting that alternative alignments were available which could improve access to the temple without requiring demolition of existing neighbourhoods and religious structures.

Another important strand of the petition concerned the social consequences of redevelopment. Dalmandi is not merely a cluster of buildings; it is a living commercial locality whose economy has evolved over generations. The petitioners argued that the project would displace traders, workers and families whose livelihoods depended upon businesses established in the locality over several decades. While acknowledging the importance of improving civic infrastructure, they contended that the State had failed to adequately balance developmental objectives with constitutional guarantees protecting livelihood, religious practice and equality before the law.

The petition further alleged that the proposed alignment disproportionately affected one community and was therefore arbitrary. The High Court later described these assertions as “odd pleadings”, indicating that it found the allegations insufficiently substantiated by specific material placed on record. Nevertheless, the broader concern articulated by the petition—that redevelopment in religiously sensitive spaces demands heightened constitutional scrutiny—continued to inform the legal arguments advanced before the Court.

The State’s response: Eminent domain cannot be displaced by implication

The Uttar Pradesh Government fundamentally disagreed with the petitioners’ interpretation of the 1991 Act. According to the State, the legislation was enacted for a specific and limited purpose: to prohibit the conversion of places of worship from one religion or denomination to another. It was never intended to extinguish the State’s sovereign authority to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes. Reading such an exemption into the statute, the State argued, would effectively place every temple, mosque, church, gurudwara and shrine permanently beyond the reach of land acquisition laws, regardless of compelling public necessity. Parliament, it submitted, had expressed no such intention.

The State therefore relied upon the doctrine of eminent domain, the well-established constitutional principle recognising the State’s authority to acquire private property for a public purpose subject to payment of compensation and compliance with statutory safeguards. That power today is principally regulated by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), which replaced the colonial Land Acquisition Act of 1894 with a framework emphasising social impact assessment, rehabilitation, transparency and fair compensation.

Crucially, the State argued that the RFCTLARR Act does not create a blanket exemption for religious properties. Instead, it prescribes the conditions under which acquisition may occur while balancing developmental needs with the rights of affected persons. If Parliament had intended places of worship to enjoy absolute immunity from acquisition, it could have expressly provided so. The absence of such an exemption, according to the State, was itself significant.

The Government also relied upon provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, which contemplate acquisition of Waqf properties under certain circumstances while requiring adherence to statutory safeguards and compensation mechanisms. These provisions, the State argued, demonstrated that Parliament recognised acquisition of religious endowments as legally permissible, subject to due process, rather than absolutely prohibited. At a deeper level, the dispute reflected two competing constitutional visions.

For the petitioners, the Places of Worship Act represented a broad constitutional guarantee preserving the continued existence of historic places of worship against contemporary State action. For the State, the Act performed a narrower but equally important function: preventing religious conversion of sites while leaving intact the ordinary operation of land acquisition law. Resolving that conflict required the High Court to answer not merely what the statute says, but what Parliament intended the Act to protect. That inquiry would lead the Bench to adopt one of the narrowest judicial readings of the Places of Worship Act since its enactment in 1991.

The Court’s reasoning: Locus standi, statutory interpretation and the doctrine of eminent domain

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment proceeds in two distinct stages. The first concerns maintainability—whether the petitioners possessed the legal standing to challenge the acquisition. The second addresses the larger constitutional issue of whether the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 limits the State’s power to compulsorily acquire places of worship. While the Court ultimately dismissed the petition on grounds of locus standi, it nevertheless chose to examine the substantive legal issue. In doing so, it delivered one of the most detailed judicial interpretations of the Places of Worship Act since its enactment.

A threshold question: Who can challenge the acquisition?

The Bench first noted that the petitioners were tenants and shopkeepers, not the owners of the properties proposed to be acquired. Although they undoubtedly stood to lose their businesses and livelihoods, the Court held that the legal challenge to acquisition primarily belongs to those whose proprietary rights are directly affected.

Under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, it is ordinarily the title holder who possesses the right to object to acquisition, negotiate compensation or challenge the legality of the State’s exercise of eminent domain. Since none of the property owners had approached the Court, the Bench found it difficult to sustain a challenge instituted solely by tenants.

“We would think that the petitioners are more or less here, in order to protect their business and source of livelihood, rather than proprietary rights,” the Court remarked, reported LiveLaw. This observation should not be misunderstood as dismissing the hardships that acquisition may cause tenants. Rather, it reflects a long-established principle of land acquisition law: economic injury does not necessarily confer the same legal standing as proprietary ownership. Yet, the conclusion also reveals one of the limitations of the judgment.

The Court did not meaningfully engage with the evolving constitutional jurisprudence surrounding Article 21, where livelihood has increasingly been recognised as an integral component of the right to life. Decisions such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation have acknowledged that displacement and deprivation of livelihood engage constitutional protections beyond conventional property rights. While Olga Tellis arose in a different factual context, the judgment nevertheless illustrates that constitutional standing cannot always be viewed exclusively through the lens of ownership.

The Bench’s approach therefore reflects a relatively traditional understanding of locus standi in acquisition proceedings, even as constitutional jurisprudence has gradually expanded recognition of those indirectly affected by State action.

Can ordinary worshippers defend a mosque?

The Court adopted a similar approach regarding the six mosques proposed to be acquired. The petitioners argued that, as members of the Muslim community, they were entitled to seek judicial protection for places of worship that had existed for centuries. The Court disagreed.

Each of the six mosques, it observed, was a registered Waqf administered by its own Mutawalli. Under the statutory framework governing Waqf properties, it is primarily the Mutawalli and the State Waqf Board that are entrusted with protecting Waqf assets and representing them before courts.

The Bench therefore held:

“The mosques are admittedly registered Waqf, with their own Mutawalli in each case. No doubt, members of the Muslim community may come forward in certain cases, but essentially it is the Mutawalli and the Waqf Board, who have to protect such properties. We have, nevertheless, heard the petitioners on this issue as well. If we hear the petitioners on this issue and pass judgment, it might prejudice the rights of the Mutawalli and the Waqf Board, who might have something to say in the matter, and their locus is pre-eminent, and not of the petitioners”. (Para 36)

Importantly, the Court did not hold that the mosques themselves lacked legal protection. Instead, it concluded that these particular petitioners were not the appropriate parties to assert those rights. This distinction assumes significance because the judgment expressly leaves open the possibility of future litigation by the Waqf Board or the respective Mutawallis. In other words, the Court’s dismissal of the petition cannot be read as foreclosing all future challenges to the acquisition of the mosques.

Interpreting the Places of Worship Act: Conversion is not acquisition

The central legal question before the Bench was whether the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prevents the State from acquiring a place of worship that existed before August 15, 1947.

The petitioners relied primarily upon Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Section 3 prohibits the conversion of any place of worship belonging to one religious denomination into a place of worship of another denomination or another section of the same religion. Section 4 declares that the religious character of every place of worship existing on 15 August 1947 shall continue to remain the same. According to the petitioners, these provisions effectively insulated pre-Independence places of worship from acquisition or demolition because any such action would inevitably alter their religious character.

The High Court rejected this interpretation. The Bench cautioned against reading Section 4 in isolation. If viewed independently, Section 4 might appear to suggest that every place of worship existing on 15 August 1947 must physically remain untouched forever. However, the Court held that such a reading would misconstrue the statute and disregard the legislative context in which it was enacted.

Instead, the Court adopted what it described as a harmonious construction of Sections 3 and 4. Read together, these provisions reveal Parliament’s true objective—to prevent one religious community or denomination from converting a place of worship belonging to another community after Independence. Thus, a temple existing on 15 August 1947 cannot subsequently become a mosque or church; equally, a mosque cannot be converted into a temple or any other place of worship. That, according to the Court, is the extent of the statutory prohibition.

The judgment stressed that Parliament enacted the Places of Worship Act in the aftermath of escalating communal disputes over religious sites to preserve communal harmony and maintain the religious status quo existing at the time of Independence. Nothing in the language of the Act, however, indicates an intention to withdraw the State’s traditional power to acquire land for public purposes.

“Now, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1991 have to be harmoniously construed, in particular, sub-Section (1) of Section 4. Read in isolation, sub-Section (1) of Section 4 might seem to declare that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 is immutable, to wit, if it was a temple, it will remain a temple, if a church, it would remain that, and if a mosque, it would continue to be so. But reading it this way, would be a misconstruction of the scope of the Statute. When Section 4(1) of the Act of 1991 is read together with Section 3, it is evident that there is a prohibition imposed by Section 3 upon any person converting any place of worship of any religious denomination or a sect thereof into a place of worship of a different sect of the same denomination or to that of a different religious denomination. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1991, when harmoniously construed, prevent the religious character of a place of worship belonging to a religious denomination from being changed into a place of worship of another religious denomination, from whatever it was on the 15th day of August, 1947. In short, a temple on 15th August, 1947 cannot be converted to a church or a mosque, and likewise, a mosque or a church to a temple.” (Para 42)

According to the Court, interpreting the 1991 Act as creating absolute immunity from acquisition would place every religious property beyond the reach of public infrastructure projects, regardless of necessity or public interest. Such an interpretation, the Bench held, finds no support either in the statutory language or in the legislative purpose underlying the Act.

The Court therefore concluded that the Places of Worship Act protects religious identity, not ownership. It prevents the alteration of the religious character of places of worship but does not prohibit their acquisition for roads, public infrastructure or other secular public purposes carried out in accordance with law and accompanied by payment of compensation.

The Bench also found support for this interpretation in the amended provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. Section 51 expressly recognises that Waqf properties may be acquired for public purposes under the RFCTLARR Act or other land acquisition laws, provided the acquisition is undertaken in consultation with the Waqf Board and subject to statutory safeguards, including that it should not contravene the Places of Worship Act, be for an undisputed public purpose, and provide appropriate compensation or suitable alternative land where required. Far from prohibiting acquisition, the Waqf Act, the Court held, prescribes the conditions under which such acquisition may lawfully take place.

“Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended by Act No. 14 of 2025) provides, by virtue of the second proviso to sub-Section (1A) of Section 51 that nothing contained in this sub-Section, that is to say, the prohibition on sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or transfer of Waqf property being void, shall affect any acquisition of Waqf properties for a public purpose, under the Act of 2013, or any other law relating to acquisition of land, if such acquisition is made in consultation with the Board. The Board, of course, means the Waqf Board. The third proviso says that the acquisition shall not be in contravention of the Act of 1991, the provision upon which learned Counsel for the petitioner has much harped.” (Para 44)

The Court’s understanding of eminent domain

The judgment is equally significant for its reaffirmation of the constitutional doctrine of eminent domain. The Bench held that nothing in the Places of Worship Act suggests Parliament intended to curtail the State’s sovereign authority to acquire land for public purposes. Such a conclusion, it reasoned, would create an extraordinary category of property permanently insulated from acquisition—something Parliament neither expressly stated nor necessarily intended.

The Court explained:

“The purport of the Act of 1991 is not to place beyond the pale of authority of the State’s right as the owner paramount of all lands in the territory of India and to acquire and use it for any public purpose, subject, of course, to the owner’s right to receive just and fair compensation. That is what the doctrine of eminent domain, after all, means. The Act of 1991 is not meant to derogate from that right of the State.” (Para 42)

The reasoning reflects a limited ,classical understanding of eminent domain: private rights yield to public necessity, subject to legality, due process and compensation. However, the judgment also illustrates a recurring feature of Indian constitutional adjudication. The Court devotes considerable attention to affirming the State’s acquisition powers but relatively little to examining the quality of judicial review that should accompany their exercise—particularly where acquisition affects centuries-old religious institutions. The distinction is important.

Recognising that the State possesses the power to acquire land does not automatically answer whether a particular acquisition satisfies constitutional standards of fairness, proportionality or necessity.

Reliance on Ismail Faruqui

To reinforce its interpretation, the Bench relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994). That decision, delivered in the aftermath of the acquisition of land around the disputed Ayodhya site, held that acquisition of a mosque is not constitutionally prohibited merely because it is a place of worship. The Constitution Bench observed that offering namaz is not necessarily confined to a mosque, and consequently a mosque does not enjoy absolute immunity from acquisition.

The Allahabad High Court relied upon these observations to conclude that acquisition of religious property remains constitutionally permissible where undertaken for a legitimate public purpose. The reliance is doctrinally understandable because Ismail Faruqui continues to remain binding precedent on land acquisition. Yet it also revives one of the most debated aspects of Indian constitutional law.

The observations concerning the essentiality of mosques to Islamic practice have been criticised by constitutional lawyers for venturing into theological questions that were arguably unnecessary for deciding the acquisition dispute before the Court. Indeed, in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya, 2019), the Supreme Court clarified that Ismail Faruqui should be understood in the limited context of acquisition and should not be read as a broader pronouncement on Islamic doctrine.

The Allahabad High Court follows precisely that limited approach. It relies on Ismail Faruqui not to determine the importance of mosques within Islam, but to reaffirm the narrower proposition that religious properties are not constitutionally immune from compulsory acquisition. Yet that conclusion, while legally defensible, does not exhaust the constitutional questions raised by the case. The more difficult issue is not whether acquisition is legally permissible.

It is how courts should scrutinise the exercise of that power when acquisition affects historic places of worship situated within politically contested landscapes. That question, significantly, remains largely unanswered by the judgment.

A narrow reading of a law enacted to preserve constitutional secularism

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment is likely to become an important precedent in future disputes involving religious properties and public infrastructure. Its central holding—that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not prohibit the State from acquiring places of worship for secular public purposes—is likely to be cited in litigation involving roads, railways, metro projects, heritage redevelopment and urban renewal schemes across the country. Yet, while the judgment provides a coherent textual interpretation of the statute, it also leaves several constitutional questions unanswered. These unanswered questions are important because they go to the heart of the constitutional balance between State power, religious freedom and secularism.

The High Court proceeds on the premise that Parliament intended the Places of Worship Act to prevent only one mischief—the conversion of a place of worship from one religion to another. There is textual support for this conclusion. Sections 3 and 4 repeatedly refer to “conversion” and “religious character.” Read literally, they do not expressly prohibit acquisition. However, constitutional interpretation rarely ends with the literal text. Every statute must also be understood in light of the constitutional purpose it seeks to achieve.

The Places of Worship Act was enacted in September 1991 during one of independent India’s most volatile communal moments. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement had transformed disputes over historical religious sites into instruments of mass political mobilisation. Parliament responded by freezing the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, making a conscious constitutional choice that independent India would not continually reopen disputes rooted in medieval history. In Ayodhya jugdment, the Supreme Court recognised precisely this objective.

The Court described the Places of Worship Act as a legislative instrument that protects the secular foundations of the Constitution by preventing history from becoming a source of recurring communal conflict. It called the Act a statutory reflection of India’s constitutional commitment to equality, fraternity and secularism, observing that the law imposes a principle of constitutional non-retrogression—the Republic would move forward from the moment of Independence rather than repeatedly litigate the past. Against that backdrop, an important question arises.

If Parliament intended to preserve communal harmony by protecting historic places of worship, does that protection concern only their religious identity, or also their continued existence? The Allahabad High Court answers only the first question. It does not meaningfully engage with the second. That omission does not necessarily render the judgment incorrect. But it does illustrate the limits of a purely textual approach when interpreting legislation enacted to serve a larger constitutional purpose.

Conversion and acquisition: A distinction that invites further debate

The judgment rests upon a clear distinction between conversion and acquisition. According to the Court, acquisition changes ownership; conversion changes religious identity. Legally, the distinction is logical. Constitutionally, however, it is more complicated. A mosque acquired for a road project has not become a temple; a church acquired for a metro line has not become a gurudwara; yet neither continues to function as a place of worship. This raises an important constitutional question that the judgment leaves unanswered.

Can the religious character of a place meaningfully survive once the place itself has ceased to exist? The answer is not obvious. One could argue, as the Court does, that Parliament deliberately chose only to prohibit conversion and not acquisition. Equally, one could argue that the continued existence of historic places of worship forms part of the very constitutional settlement the Act sought to preserve after Independence. Neither interpretation is implausible. The issue is likely to acquire greater significance if future redevelopment projects affect historic temples, mosques, churches or gurudwaras elsewhere in the country.

The meaning of “public purpose”

Perhaps the most important constitutional issue left largely unexplored by the judgment concerns the idea of public purpose. Throughout the decision, the Court accepts road widening, urban infrastructure and improved pilgrimage access as legitimate public purposes. Ordinarily, that proposition is uncontroversial. Courts have long recognised roads, railways, public transport and civic infrastructure as classic examples of public purpose. However, constitutional adjudication ordinarily does not stop there.

Where fundamental rights are affected, courts frequently ask additional questions.

• Is the objective legitimate?
• Was due fair and reasonable process followed in the actions of acquisition of ancient temples and mosques: dialogues, engagements, adjudication?
• Is the chosen measure necessary?
• Could the same objective have been achieved through less restrictive means?
• Has the State adequately balanced competing constitutional interests?

Those questions receive relatively limited attention in the present judgment. This is partly explained by the Court’s finding that the petition itself suffered from lack of locus standi. Once the Court concluded that the petitioners were not the appropriate parties to challenge the acquisition, it understandably refrained from undertaking a detailed proportionality analysis. Nevertheless, the broader constitutional issue remains. Redevelopment projects affecting centuries-old places of worship occupy a category distinct from ordinary land acquisition disputes. Such projects implicate not merely property rights but also religious freedom, cultural heritage, community identity and constitutional secularism. Future litigation instituted by title holders, Mutawallis or Waqf Boards may therefore require courts to scrutinise more closely whether the asserted public purpose justifies the particular acquisition in question.

The heritage dimension

Another notable feature of the judgment is what it does not discuss. The decision treats the dispute primarily as one concerning statutory interpretation and land acquisition. It says relatively little about heritage. Yet heritage formed an important part of the wider public debate surrounding the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor.

For several years, historians, architects, urban planners and conservationists have debated whether redevelopment of the temple precinct should be understood merely as infrastructure expansion or also as a profound transformation of one of India’s oldest living cities. The issue extends beyond individual buildings. Varanasi’s historic significance lies not only in monumental structures such as the Kashi Vishwanath Temple or the Gyanvapi Mosque but equally in the intricate network of neighbourhoods, shrines, markets and narrow lanes that evolved over centuries.

Urban heritage increasingly recognises that cities possess value not merely because of isolated monuments but because of the relationships between monuments, communities and everyday life. Indian constitutional law itself reflects this concern. Article 49 places an obligation upon the State to protect monuments of national importance, and Article 51A(f) recognises a fundamental duty to value and preserve the country’s composite culture. Neither provision directly governed the dispute before the Allahabad High Court. Yet both remind us that redevelopment of historically significant urban spaces inevitably raises constitutional questions extending beyond land acquisition alone.

What the judgment leaves open

It is equally important to understand what the Court did not decide. The judgment does not hold that every acquisition of a religious property is automatically valid. Nor does it approve every aspect of the Dalmandi redevelopment project. The Court does not examine whether the acquisition satisfies every procedural safeguard under the RFCTLARR Act; it does not determine whether consultation requirements under the Waqf Act were fully complied with; and it does not decide whether compensation is adequate. Nor does it adjudicate upon the independent rights of the Waqf Board or the Mutawallis, expressly leaving those questions open for future proceedings. Accordingly, the judgment should not be read more broadly than its ratio permits.

Its central proposition is narrower: the Places of Worship Act, by itself, does not prohibit acquisition of places of worship for a lawful public purpose. Whether a particular acquisition satisfies constitutional and statutory safeguards remains a separate inquiry.

Conclusion: Development, secularism and the future of the Places of Worship Act

The Allahabad High Court’s decision arrives at a moment when the constitutional future of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 itself remains under scrutiny before the Supreme Court. In that sense, the judgment is likely to influence debates extending far beyond the immediate dispute in Dalmandi. Its importance lies not because it diminishes the constitutional value of secularism, the Court expressly accepts the continuing force of the 1991 Act, but because it narrows the statute’s operational field. By distinguishing conversion from acquisition, the Court shifts future disputes involving redevelopment away from the Places of Worship Act and towards the law of eminent domain, land acquisition, proportionality and procedural fairness. Whether that shift ultimately strengthens constitutional governance or weakens one of Parliament’s most significant secular safeguards remains an open question.

If accepted more broadly, the judgment means that the principal legal battleground in future cases may no longer be whether the Places of Worship Act bars State action, but whether the exercise of eminent domain itself satisfies constitutional standards of fairness, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination. That is a significant doctrinal shift. It also reflects a larger constitutional reality.

As Indian cities continue to redevelop historic religious precincts, whether in Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Ayodhya or elsewhere, courts will increasingly be called upon to reconcile competing constitutional values: development and conservation, public infrastructure and religious freedom, State power and minority rights, heritage and modernisation. The Dalmandi judgment does not resolve those tensions. It marks the beginning of a new chapter in that conversation.

The complete judgment may be read below:

[1] Announced with much fanfare in March 2019, when prime minister Modi laid the foundation stone, it was formally inaugurated in 2021; https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2122058&reg=48&lang=2

[2] https://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/current-issues/advani-to-modi-to-yogi-a-hindutva-story-foretold/article64931577.ece; https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article25545271.ece

[3] Babri Masjid Demolition: Point of Departure, and of Arrival, Teesta Setalvad, Social Scientist; https://www.jstor.org/stable/27249507

Related:

When the Supreme Court directed protection for the Gyan Vapi Mosque, upheld the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (1994, 1995, 1997)

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

The Challenge to Places of Worship Special Provisions Act, 1991 is Misconceived

Article 32 cannot be invoked to enforce all disputes relating to the Places of Worship Act: SC

When and How Ram Vilas Paswan made a strong pitch for the Places of Worship Act, 1991

Understanding the Supreme Court’s Interim Intervention in the Waqf Amendments, 2025

‘Reforms’: Sachar Committee, the 2013 Amendments and the motive behind the proposed changes in the Waqf Regime

Amendments to the Waqf Law were needed, but the grab-and-control Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 is not the answer

The post Public Purpose and Places of Worship: Allahabad HC’s Dalmandi verdict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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 Odisha State Sentence Review Board has recommended his release from jail on ground of “good behaviour.” On July 14, 2026, a bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi of the Supreme Court through its order had asked the Odisha Government to take a decision on the premature release of Singh by August 19. Reportedly, the bench also made an oral observation that, “You take a decision by August 15. Let him also celebrate Independence Day by then.” Reported the Hindustan Times.

Singh, who is said to be associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Bajrang Dal, is serving life imprisonment not only for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons, but also for the 1999 murder of Catholic priest Arul Das, who was shot with an arrow while fleeing a building that had been set on fire. Reported the new Indian Express. He was also convicted for the murder of Shaikh Rahman, a Muslim garment merchant, who was brutally assaulted, had his hands severed, and whose body and garment stall were set ablaze.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court had sought the Odisha government’s response on a plea filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain seeking Singh’s remission of sentence and release, asserting that he met the state government’s criteria for granting remission (i.e. 25 years). The reformative theory of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer was invoked and reliance was placed on the Court’s 2022 judgment permitting the premature release of the convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

The current remission, therefore reflects a broader pattern in India of state governments ruled by the incumbent-BJP granting remission to those convicted in cases of gross communal violence. One such earlier instance was the release of the convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gang rape and family murder case, a decision that remained in force until it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

It is worth noting that prior to this; Singh’s plea for remission has been evaluated on five separate occasions, and has been turned down each time, with the most recent rejection occurring in February 2024.

How the Remission Was Filed and Processed

Singh’s possible release has drawn political attention in the past. During a campaign for his release in 2022, when the BJD government was in power, Sudarshan TV editor-in-chief Suresh Chavhanke attempted to meet him in prison but was denied permission. Mohan Charan Majhi, (now the Chief Minister of Odisha), had also joined a protest outside the jail demanding Singh’s release. However, the Board’s consideration of Singh’s case was based on the prescribed remission process and the reports submitted by the relevant authorities. This clearly establishes that organised political demand for Singh’s release predates, by a considerable margin, the administrative process that has now produced it.

At its September 2025 meeting, the Board considered 107 cases. It recommended the release of 18 life convicts, rejected 75 applications, and deferred 14, including Singh’s. Singh’s case remained pending because the Board required a fresh report from his home district.

According to The Hindu, the State Sentence Review Board met in the first week of July 2026 to consider the premature release of eligible life convicts. Among the cases reviewed was that of Dara Singh. In his petition before the Supreme Court, he stated that he deeply regretted the offences committed over two decades earlier and sought an opportunity to “give back to society” through service-oriented work.  He also claimed that he bore no personal animosity towards the victims and described his actions as the result of “youthful rage.” Singh was 37 years old at the time of his arrest!

Under Odisha’s 2022 premature-release guidelines, a convict whose sentence has been commuted from death to life becomes eligible for remission consideration after 25 years in custody, subject to a recommendation from the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) and government approval. Five out of six members of the SSRB belong to the executive branch of government. The presence of ruling-party legislators, when the CM has supported Singh’s release, on the deciding panel raises questions whether the government will independently apply its mind.

Comparison with the Bilkis Bano Case

Setting the two cases side by side is useful because they involve a similar factual pattern. In both instances, persons convicted of life imprisonment in communal hate-crime cases were considered for or granted premature release.

The release in Bano’s case followed a plea filed by one convict, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, who argued he had already served over 15 years and sought early release. Shah had first tried this route in Gujarat, where the Gujarat High Court itself had indicated that Maharashtra, the state where his trial was actually conducted after the Supreme Court moved it there on Bano’s plea, was the appropriate government to decide his remission, not Gujarat. On May 13, 2022, Supreme Court order directed Gujarat (rather than Maharashtra) to decide the remission question. Acting on the Court’s direction, the Gujarat government formed a committee, which went on to recommend that the sentences of all 11 convicts in the case be remitted. The panel that granted remission included BJP legislators, the same party that governed Gujarat at the time of the riots. One of those legislators publicly defended the convicts by remarking that some of them were “Brahmins” with good values. Reported NDTV.

Several activists, along with Bilkis Bano herself petitioned the Court in November 2022. On January 8, 2024, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the remission, holding that Gujarat was never the appropriate government and that the May 2022 order directing Gujarat to decide had itself been obtained by concealing material facts. The convicts were ordered back to prison within two weeks.

In Bano’s case, when the Gujarat government had released eleven convicts on August 15, 2022, they were welcomed with sweets and had their feet touched by supporters. Singh has for years been celebrated by sections of the Hindu right. Organisations such as the Dharmarakhyak Sri Dara Singh Bachao Samiti and Dara Sena have publicly campaigned for his release and portrayed him as a defender of Hinduism.

Given this, especially when the incumbent Odisha Chief Minister has also, before assuming office, expressed support for Singh’s release, there is a significant possibility that Singh’s release too will receive a public welcome similar to that accorded to the Bano’s convicts. The repeated public glorification of individuals convicted in cases of communal violence by organisations affiliated with or aligned to the BJP-RSS ecosystem raises serious concerns about the social and political messaging such releases convey.

While concealment of material facts was the decisive ground in Bano’s case, the Court also separately described Gujarat’s orders as stereotyped and passed without application of mind. Odisha’s Sentence Review Board considered Singh’s file within a batch of dozens of prisoners in a single sitting arguably meets the same structural vulnerability.

Five factors were decided in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000), to decide on pre-mature release of convicts, namely:

i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large?

ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime?

iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime?

iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more?

v) Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.

The first factor alone arguably requires reckoning with the fact that his is not a single offence but three separate convictions, spanning roughly a year, each targeting a different religious minority.

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

Related:

Remembering the Graham Staines Murder

Bilkis Bano gets Justice: Supreme Court strikes down remission

De-coding the historic Bilkis Bano verdict

The post Dara Singh, convicted in string of 1999 communal killings, likely set for release by August 15 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Karat had originally approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). She had sought criminal action against Thakur and Verma for offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that their speeches promoted enmity between communities and incited hatred during the polarised campaign surrounding the anti-CAA protests.

The complaint stemmed from BJP MP Anurag Thakur’s election rally on January 27, 2020, where he led the crowd in chanting the slogan, “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko” (“Shoot the traitors”). It also challenged speeches delivered by BJP leader Parvesh Verma, who described Shaheen Bagh protesters as “infiltrators” and claimed they would “enter your homes, rape your daughters and sisters, and kill them” if elected to power.

On April 26, a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed Karat’s appeal, agreeing with the Delhi High Court’s conclusion that no cognisable offence was made out. The Court reasoned that the speeches did not explicitly target any identifiable religious or other protected community and therefore did not attract the penal provisions invoked.

Detailed report may be read here.

While the Supreme Court overruled the Delhi High Court on one significant legal question—holding that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC is not required before a Magistrate directs registration of an FIR under Section 156(3)—it nevertheless endorsed the conclusion that the speeches disclosed no cognisable offence.

The review petition contends that this conclusion amounts to an “error apparent on the face of the record.” According to Karat, neither the Magistrate nor the Delhi High Court had examined the substantive allegations of hate speech. Instead, both courts confined themselves to the procedural question of whether sanction under Section 196 CrPC was a prerequisite for directing investigation.

The petition points out that the Delhi High Court had expressly recorded that the ACMM had not entered into the merits of the allegations. It had also clarified that its observations were limited to the issue of sanction and would not prejudice any future adjudication on whether the speeches constituted criminal offences.

However, despite partly allowing Karat’s appeal by reversing the High Court’s interpretation of Section 196 CrPC, the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 136 to 138 of its judgment, went on to hold that it agreed with the ultimate conclusion that no cognisable offence was made out. The review petition argues that the Court effectively decided the substantive criminal liability of the BJP leaders without the parties having addressed detailed arguments on the merits of the alleged hate speech.

As per the LiveLaw report, Karat further relies on contemporaneous findings of the Election Commission of India (ECI), which had taken action against both BJP leaders during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign. The ECI found that the speeches violated the Model Code of Conduct, had the potential to aggravate existing differences between religious communities and promote mutual hatred. Acting on these findings, the Commission removed both leaders from the BJP’s list of star campaigners and imposed temporary campaign bans.

The review petition also questions the reliance placed on the police status report submitted before the trial court. The police had concluded that no cognisable offence was disclosed, reasoning that Thakur’s slogan did not refer to any specific community and that Verma’s remarks on the Shaheen Bagh protests amounted to political criticism rather than criminal hate speech. According to Karat, the Supreme Court reproduced this reasoning without independently evaluating the material on record, including video recordings of the speeches and the Election Commission’s findings.

Arguing that the issue was never subjected to a full judicial examination, the review petition urges the Supreme Court to recall its finding that no cognisable offence was disclosed and to adjudicate the hate speech allegations afresh after hearing the parties on the merits. The petition has been filed through Advocates Sylona Mohapatra, Tara Nirula and Adit Pujari.

Related:

Nazia Elahi Khan faces multiple FIRs over alleged hate speech

CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

The Supreme Court blinks when it comes to Hate Speech

The post Brinda Karat seeks review of SC verdict in Thakur-Verma hate speech case 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.

On June 15, Praful Vaniya, Superintendent of Police (Intelligence) in the Gujarat State Police Service (SPS), issued a notice announcing the arrival of the new Anti-Radicalisation Cell (ARC). The notice also provides a step-by-step identification, prevention, detection, intervention and re-integration checklist that the police has in mind.

The SOP for Gujarat’s newly operationalised ARC claims to lay down ways to assess and decode behavioural indicators for identifying ‘radicalised’ individuals – but the details listed seem exclusively focused on Muslim radicals, conflate Muslim religious practices with security threats, and are silent on any markers of Hindu radicalism of the kind the state witnessed in 2002 and after or the rest of India has witnessed over the past decade.

From monitoring beards and niqabs to seeing Middle East travels as suspicious, from questioning the use of Signal for messaging to watching those supporting Muslim rights on social media, the SOP appears designed to penalise common Muslims – and is silent on the violent activities of cow vigilantes and the calls by Hindutva radicals for the boycott and even killing of Muslims.

Who is a ‘radicalised person’?

“A radicalised person refers to an individual affecting law and order in the State who, driven by extremist (‘kattarpant’) ideologies, engages in anti-national activities to harm the unity and integrity of the nation, creates an atmosphere of fear among the people, and try to manipulate a sane/rational person to get them to convert their religion” – these are the exact words of the notice, seen by The Wire.

Further, the notice flags “Suddenly keeping a beard, wearing a niqab, frequent use of Arabic words, reducing contact with friends and family, expressing intense protest/resentment against events happening to the Muslim community globally, praising terrorists, or showing a change in behaviour after traveling abroad (e.g., Afghanistan, Middle East)”. Next, the notice asks officers to trace purchase activity of ‘radicalised indviduals’ – “Purchasing fertilisers containing potassium nitrate, sulphur, or ammonium nitrate; acquiring LPG cylinders; making frequent visits to forest-like areas; making frequent contact with individuals residing in the Gulf, PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir), or Afghanistan through encrypted apps; or withdrawing large amounts of cash”, the notice says, .

Even downloading VPN apps or using Signal or Element messengers have been listed as signs to watch out for. Other listed criteria includes ‘being members of extremist Telegram groups; following ISIS/AQ (Al-Qaeda) accounts, sharing Nasheeds, Dabiq/Rumiyah magazines; or using cryptocurrency (especially Monero) without any apparent source of income’.

Those ‘visiting extremist networks or Arabic colleges/madrasas’, performing a religious ritual like Itikaf (seclusion in a mosque) before planned activities, ‘suddenly leaving their education or employment citing Islamic duty’, or ‘visiting ‘kattarvad’ leaders after being released from prison’ are also flagged as potentially radicalised. It also orders officers to obtain complete details of maulanas teaching in madrasas, prepare a directory, and gather information/records on ‘whether they maintain contact with organisations holding extremist ideologies’.

The SOP recommends the monitoring of ‘extremist preachers, communal organisations, radicalised individuals who are or have been in prisons’, and specifically names those belonging to Salafi and Wahhabi school of Islamic thought within Sunni Islam.

Under the SOP’s ‘Intervention – Counselling and Guidance’ stage, the ARC is directed to identify and verify influential community leaders, social media influencers, NGOs, religious scholars, psychologists and educational experts who can assist in de-radicalisation efforts. It calls for counselling sessions involving family members, religious experts and psychiatrists, while requiring that the identity of individuals undergoing counselling be kept confidential. The SOP also instructs authorities to help such individuals reintegrate into education and employment and maintain regular contact with them. However, it states that if an individual commits or prepares to commit a cognisable offence after undergoing counselling, legal action should be initiated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, with all such actions reported to the state headquarters.

While the Gujarat ARC has formally taken shape only this year, its origins date back over a decade. The idea of a dedicated deradicalisation mechanism first gained traction in 2015, at a Directors General and Inspectors General of Police conference in Gujarat’s Rann of Kutch, where the Telangana Police’s deradicalisation model was presented as a template for states grappling with online radicalisation.

In 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah at the annual conference of DGPs and IGPs, recommended the idea of this cell.

The BJP subsequently promised to establish an ARC in its 2022 Gujarat assembly election manifesto, and began operationalising the proposal. Following the recommendations, a task force including a faculty head of the Gandhinagar-based Rashtriya Raksha University and police officials of the state Anti-Terrorism Squad, Crime Branch and Ahmedabad Central Jail was set up. But the project reportedly could not take off because of “lack of funds”.

On June 15, the SOP was circulated to district and commissionerate offices and laid out the ARC’s functioning – from identifying individuals deemed vulnerable to radicalisation and maintaining dossiers on them to counselling, rehabilitation and post-intervention monitoring. The SOP states that the ARC will function in coordination with district police units, the Special Operations Group (SOG), prison authorities and state Intelligence Bureau officers.

Communally targeted policing

Barrister Arif Ansari believes that this SOP is an open violation of the very basic fundamentals of the Constitution. “Article 14, 19, 21, 25, all are being buried under the kind of surveillance the state wants to impose on Muslims. This is state-sanctioned stereotyping and appears to be clearly motivated for electoral gains. India’s founding fathers made sure that all religions had equal respect and rights, but for Muslims, the morning begins with demolitions and evening ends with law being deployed against us,” Ansari told The Wire.

“After the 1980s, Gujarat became the laboratory of communal fascism. And the manufacturers of this policy were successful in planting this ideology in the state. Then we saw 2002, and the same politicians would be elected again and again,” Hiren Gandhi, a social activist, told The Wire.

While Gandhi recalls how post the 1980s, anti-Muslim leaders, policies and politics became the norm in Gujarat, he believes that the ARC should be placed in the broader context of how politics and sentiments have evolved in the BJP-run state.

“This kind of a mechanism is absolutely wrong but understand that it is nothing new. This is happening in ways and methods across India. During Covid-19, the same kind of radicalism rhetoric was peddled against the Tablighi Jamaat, they were dehumanised using their religion. This is a disgusting kind of politics killing democratic rights,” Gandhi said.

The SOP has also drawn political criticism. In a July 14 letter to Gujarat chief minister Bhupendra Patel, CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas urged the state government to keep its implementation in abeyance pending an independent review, arguing that several of its reported provisions risk conflating ordinary manifestations of Muslim religious identity with indicators of radicalisation.

“While intelligence agencies may legitimately monitor unlawful activities based on credible information, any framework that enables surveillance or profiling primarily on the basis of religion, appearance, language, dress or religious observance would raise profound constitutional concerns. Such measures, if undertaken without clearly defined legal thresholds, objective safeguards and judicial oversight, would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of equality before law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, dignity and privacy,” Brittas writes.

“Our constitutional jurisprudence has emphasised that the State cannot proceed on the basis of stereotypes or collective suspicion. Equality before law requires that every citizen be assessed on the basis of credible evidence of unlawful conduct, not on the basis of faith, cultural identity, attire, language, appearance or lawful religious practices. Any institutional framework that creates an impression of profiling a particular community would be inconsistent with the constitutional promise of equal protection of laws. Effective intelligence depends upon trust between citizens and law-enforcement agencies. Policies that appear to stigmatise an entire community undermine that trust, discourage cooperation with investigative agencies, and risk alienating precisely those citizens whose partnership is indispensable in combating extremism,” he continues.

Human rights campaigner Shabnam Hashmi asked why other kinds of radicalisation – often openly visible in today’s India – find no place in the SOP. “See, I will not dispute the fact that radicalisation is happening in different communities. But this opens up the gates to harass and pick up anyone they want to, and mainly people who have dissenting voices. That is that is what it will be used for. Secondly, if we are talking of radicalisation, what about the Hindu radicalisation? What about the threats which are being distributed openly? What about the Dharam Sansads, which are giving open calls to kill Muslims, to make India Islam-free, is that no radicalisation? This is very selective profiling of the Muslim community,” she told The Wire.

Hashmi added that while today, this Cell is targeting Muslims, “Tomorrow, it’ll target maybe Dalits, or Adivasi, or Christians.”

Former Chhattisgarh Special DGP R.K. Vij said that while radicalism is defined very widely in the SOP, the sub steps with regard to one community seem to be mentioned as an example. “This may also be understood whether Gujarat Police is mentioning the community owing to their past experience in the field,” Vij said.

The Wire reached out to Gujarat’s Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dr Sudhirkumar J. Desai, to ask about the phrasing used in the SOP and allegations of it being communally motivated. This article will be updated when a response is received.

With inputs from Sharmita Kar.

Tarushi Aswani is an independent journalist.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post For Gujarat Police, Beard, Niqab Make ‘Radicalisation’ Checklist, Cow Vigilantism Doesn’t 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.