Shobha Karandlaje, Union Minister[1], head of the BJP’s Shouting brigade, who is also famous in Karnataka as veteran of politics garnering political capital “over the dead bodies of the Hindus”[2], has once again reverted to familiar tactics. A complaint has now been submitted by her to the Union government against the Congress government in Karnataka over the ongoing SIR process.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Identity card or pension order issued to regular employees by any Central or State government or government undertaking.
- 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.
- Birth certificate issued by the competent authority.
- Passport.
- SSLC certificate or any other recognized educational certificate issued by an authorized educational authority or university.
- Permanent Residence Certificate issued by the competent State authority.
- Forest Rights Certificate.
- Any caste certificate issued by the competent authority.
- NRC records, wherever an NRC has been conducted. (At present, this applies only to Assam.)
- Family records prepared by State governments or local authorities.
- Any government-issued land or house records.
- 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
Now pay attention to Item 6:
Permanent Residence Certificate issued by Competent State Authority.
That means:
- A Permanent Residence Certificate is one of the accepted documents for establishing citizenship; and
- 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:
- Identity documents for State government employees.
- SSLC and other recognized educational certificates issued by authorized educational institutions or universities.
- Caste certificates issued by the competent authority.
- Family records prepared by State governments or local authorities.
- 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:
- A West Bengal Domicile Certificate must conform strictly to the Government Order dated November 2, 1999.
- It must be issued only by the competent authority.
- 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