A victory against injustice

After months of relentless efforts by CJP’s legal team, the Foreigners Tribunal finally ruled in Micharan Bibi’s favour, officially declaring her an Indian citizen. The tribunal recorded evidence on March 14, 2024 and February 15, 2024, during which Micharan Bibi and her witnesses testified. The final arguments were heard on November 5, 2024, and the tribunal delivered its order on December 10, 2024.

The moment she received the judgment, she was overwhelmed with emotion. “I am an Indian, yet they harassed me! For a year, I couldn’t sleep or eat properly, but you always stood by me,” she said tearfully, expressing gratitude to the CJP team for their unwavering support.

To commemorate this hard-fought victory, representatives from CJP’s Team Assam, including Assam State Incharge Nanda Ghosh and legal team members Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim and Sohidul Hussain, visited Micharan’s home to personally hand over the official order copy. Their presence underscored the significance of this triumph—not just for Micharan, but for all those who continue to face similar challenges.

Who is Micharan Bibi?

Micharan Bibi was born around 1950 to Kasem Ali (also known as Kasem or Kasam Ali) and Daliman Bibi (also known as Daliman) in Salmara Gaon, a village that was originally part of Bijni Police Station but now falls under Manikpur Police Station in Bongaigaon District, Assam (formerly part of undivided Goalpara). She spent her childhood and early years in the same village.

Her father passed away around 1980, followed by her mother’s death in 1981.

In 1971, Micharan Bibi married Abdul Khalek, son of Mahej Sheikh, from Salmara Gaon. After marriage, she moved in with her husband and his family in the same village, where she continued to reside under Manikpur Police Station, Bongaigaon District, Assam.

A nightmare unfolds

Micharan Bibi’s ordeal began when she received a shocking notice from the authorities in 2022, accusing her of being an illegal entrant, a foreigner. This notice came nearly 18 years after the case was registered in 2004, exposing a serious procedural lapse. The notice was also barred by limitation. The initial 2004 investigation was also found on examination to have inherent flaws as several such “preliminary investigations” and “inquiries” have been found to. Reports are often filed without any efforts from the Assam border police of thorough investigation or verification of facts, and the same applied in Micharan Bibi’s case too.

The notice instilled deep fear and anxiety in her, disrupting her daily life and leaving her sleepless and unable to eat properly.

The case against her was fraught with serious procedural lapses. It was Micharan’s claim that the investigating officer (I/O) responsible for verifying her citizenship submitted a fabricated inquiry report without conducting any proper investigation. The officer neither visited Micharan’s residence nor interviewed any witnesses. Instead, the report was based on false statements, making baseless allegations against her. Throughout the process, Micharan consistently denied the accusations, asserting her rightful Indian citizenship.

Team CJP Assam with Micharan Bibi outside her home

CJP’s legal intervention and the fight for justice

Recognising the injustice she faced, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) stepped in to provide Micharan with much-needed legal aid and support. CJP’s legal team of Assam meticulously built her defence, challenging the flawed I/O report and presenting irrefutable evidence proving her Indian citizenship.

One of the key arguments presented by CJP’s legal team was that Micharan’s name appeared on the electoral rolls—an undeniable indicator of Indian citizenship. Additionally, they provided substantial documentary proof, including records establishing her family’s long-standing presence in India. Her parents’ and grandparents’ names were found in both voter lists and land records, reinforcing her legitimate status as a citizen by birth and also of being a permanent resident of Assam.

Moreover, CJP’s lawyers pointed out a significant legal lapse: the case against Micharan was time-barred and limited by delay. Although it had been registered in 2004, she was only served the notice in 2022—an unacceptable delay under the law.

Enduring hardship: A road accident amidst the legal struggle

As if the legal battle was not distressing enough, Micharan suffered a severe setback when she was involved in a road accident while traveling to attend proceedings at the Foreigners Tribunal. The accident resulted in serious injuries to her legs and hands, leaving her bedridden for nearly two months. Her already fragile emotional state worsened as she endured immense physical pain while simultaneously battling the system to reclaim both her identity and dignity.

Details of the order of the Foreigners Tribunal

The Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Bongaigaon, Assam, delivered its order on December 10, 2024, declaring Micharan Bibi, wife of the late Abdul Khalek and daughter of the late Kasem Ali, to be an Indian citizen. This case arose from a reference made under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964, wherein the tribunal was required to determine whether Micharan Bibi was a foreigner who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. The proceedings were based on the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, under which the burden of proving citizenship rests on the person accused of being a foreigner.

During the proceedings, Micharan Bibi presented fourteen crucial documents in support of her claim of being an Indian citizen. These included an extract from the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) listing her grandfather, father, mother, and aunt, as well as certified copies of voter lists from 1966, 1971, 1997, 2006, 2011, 2015, and 2022, documenting her family’s continuous residence in Assam and her own inclusion as a voter.

Additionally, she submitted her Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC), a Panchayat Certificate from the Secretary of No. 4 Nowapara Gaon Panchayat confirming her long-standing residency, and a School Certificate dated March 22, 1994, issued by the Head Teacher of Barbakhara L.P. School, which verified her studies and confirmed her father’s identity as Kasem Ali.

The tribunal examined whether Micharan Bibi had successfully proven two key points: that she was the daughter of Kasem Ali and Daliman Bibi and that her parents were Indian citizens residing in Assam before March 25, 1971. The tribunal relied heavily on her School Certificate, which listed her as the daughter of Kasem Ali of Salmara village, a fact corroborated by the school’s admission register from 1956. Furthermore, voter lists from 1966 and 1971 containing her parents’ names solidified her claim of lineage. The 1951 NRC entry, along with the voter lists, established that her father and mother had been residents of Assam well before the cut-off date, making them Indian citizens. Since Micharan Bibi was their daughter, she too was deemed an Indian citizen by birth. The tribunal also noted that she had consistently participated in elections from 1971 onwards, even after the case had been registered against her, further reinforcing her status as a legitimate Indian citizen.

After considering all the evidence, the tribunal ruled that Micharan Bibi had successfully discharged the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It concluded that she was not a foreigner and had been wrongfully accused of being an illegal migrant.

This case underscores the systemic failures in Assam’s citizenship verification process, where individuals, particularly from marginalised communities, are often wrongly accused of being foreigners due to procedural errors and fabricated reports. The judgment not only restores Micharan Bibi’s legal identity and dignity but also highlights the critical role of legal intervention in preventing wrongful exclusions. Her case sets a significant precedent for others facing similar challenges under Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal system.

The order can be viewed here.

The broader impact of CJP’s work

CJP’s relentless efforts in Assam have provided a lifeline to hundreds of individuals and families trapped in the quagmire of Assam’s citizenship crisis. With a dedicated network of community volunteers, district-level motivators, and legal professionals, CJP offers paralegal assistance, legal counselling, and full-fledged legal representation to those unfairly accused of being foreigners.

In Micharan Bibi’s case, CJP’s legal team left no stone unturned in their fight to establish the truth. Their dedication ensured that an elderly woman, unjustly branded as a foreigner, was finally able to reclaim her rightful place as an Indian citizen.

Her story stands as a powerful reminder of the ongoing battle for justice in Assam. It exemplifies the impact of committed advocacy in defending the rights of the marginalised and resisting systemic injustices. As Micharan poignantly stated, “I may not be able to give you anything in return, but the Almighty will bless all of you.”

CJP’s work continues, one case at a time, bringing hope to those left vulnerable by a deeply flawed system and reaffirming the fundamental right to citizenship and dignity for all.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Citizen, Not Foreigner: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented, arguing that Section 6A should be struck down for “temporal unreasonableness,” as it no longer serves its original purpose and instead causes more harm.

This article delves into the judgement and reasoning employed by both the majority judgement and the minority opinion in arriving at their respective decisions. A detailed background becomes necessary to understand the judgement better.

The Constitutional provisions on Citizenship:

Part II- Articles 6-11 deal with Citizenship under Indian constitution. Article 5 deals with Citizenship at the commencement of Constitution, Article 6 deals with Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan with cut-off date for being deemed as a citizen set as July 19, 1948. Article 7 states that no person who migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947 shall be deemed to be a citizen of India.

Article 10 of the Constitution states that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under this part i.e., Part II—subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament—would continue to be such citizen.

Article 11 of the Constitution states that this part i.e., Part II does not take any power away from the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of Citizenship and all other matters relating to Citizenship. Essentially, the Parliament has extensive powers vis-à-vis Citizenship.

Article 29 of the Constitution deals with the protection of interests of minorities. It states that any section of citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a district script of culture of its ow shall have the right to conserve the same.

Assam Accord and the Citizenship Challenge

The Assam Accord is a significant agreement signed in 1985 between the Government of India and various student and political groups in Assam, aimed at addressing the issue of illegal immigration. The backdrop to the Accord includes the Bangladesh War of 1971, which led to a massive influx of refugees into India, particularly in Assam, resulting in demographic changes that caused anxiety among the indigenous Assamese population. The growing resentment towards illegal immigration sparked the Assam Agitation, a movement led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) from 1979 to 1985, demanding the deportation of illegal migrants. In response to the unrest, the Indian government negotiated with movement leaders, culminating in the signing of the Assam Accord on August 15, 1985. The Accord established a cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for identifying illegal immigrants, stating that those who entered Assam after this date would be deported, while those who entered before would be granted citizenship.

Pursuant to this accord, Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act, 1955 via the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, and the petitioners challenged this very Section 6A.

The Section grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin who migrated to Assam from Bangladesh. The provision classifies the class of migrants into two categories based on when they entered Assam: those who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 and those who came to Assam after January 1, 1966 but before 25 March 1971.

Provisions under Challenge

Section 6A (2) Conditions- Deemed Citizen of India

Section 6A (3) Conditions-Register to be a Citizen of India

The difference in rights between these two categories of people was that the person who has been registered for Citizenship under Section 6A (3) would be able to have their name included in the electoral roll after 10 years of their registration. Other than this, persons who became Citizens under Section 6A (3) will have same rights as those who became citizens under Section 6A(2).

Issues:

The core issue was the challenge to Section 6A, which is argued to violate the following Articles of the Constitution:

Petitioners’ Arguments

On Legislative Competence

The petitioners argued that as far as Bangladesh is concerned, it was a part of Pakistan at the time of amendment of the Constitution and for citizenship of people from the territories of Pakistan, the Constitution has Articles 6 and 7 which prescribes cut-off dates for people coming into India from Pakistan. Therefore, allowing migrants from Bangladesh and deeming them citizens was only possible via an amendment of the Constitution and not a Parliamentary legislation i.e., Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985.

On violation of Article 14

The petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Article 14 for three main reasons. First, it is too narrow as it grants citizenship only to migrants in Assam. Second, there is no valid reason for singling out Assam and ignoring other states that border Bangladesh, as these states form a similar group. Third, Section 6A sets a different cut-off date for migrants entering Assam compared to those entering other states.

On violation of Article 355

The petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Article 355 of the Constitution. They claimed that Article 355 places a duty on the Union to protect against external aggression. According to the petitioners, a three-judge bench in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India interpreted “external aggression” to include aggression caused by external migration. They further argued that, instead of preventing such migration, Section 6A actually encourages more migration into Assam. To support this argument, the petitioners cited the Sarbananda Sonowal judgment, claiming that a law’s constitutionality can be challenged if it violates Article 355.

On violation of Article 29

The petitioners argued that Article 29 of the Constitution protects the rights of endogamous communities, which they claim applies to Assam. They stated that the large influx of illegal migrants from former East Pakistan has caused significant demographic changes, leading to a loss of Assamese culture. They further argued that Article 29(1) gives communities’ full freedom to preserve their cultural identity, which they believe is threatened by the forced imposition of foreign culture through unchecked migration from Bangladesh into Assam.

On temporal unreasonableness

The petitioners argued that Section 6A(3) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 has become unconstitutional over time for several reasons. They claimed it has failed to effectively address illegal immigration, as it has not achieved its goal of identifying and deporting those who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. The lack of a temporal limit makes the provision arbitrary, undermining its original intent to grant citizenship only to immigrants from 1966 to 1971 and impeding efforts to remove illegal immigrants from electoral rolls. Additionally, the passage of time has made it easier for post-1971 immigrants to exploit the provision by forging documents and making false claims, complicating verification as government records deteriorate. The petitioners argued that these factors render Section 6A(3) temporally unreasonable, allowing it to persist indefinitely and contradicting current policies on illegal immigration, thereby incentivizing rather than curbing the issue it was intended to address.

On lack of procedure

The petitioners argued that Section 6A (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is unconstitutional because it does not outline a procedure for granting citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before January 1, 1966. They contrasted this with Section 6A(3), which specifies a procedure for those who migrated between 1966 and 1971.

The petitioners highlighted that unlike other provisions in the Citizenship Act, such as Sections 3 and 4, which establish registration regimes, Section 6A(2) does not require any registration process for individuals deemed citizens under its provisions. They argue that this lack of procedure creates ambiguity and raises concerns about the arbitrary conferment of citizenship.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents argued that Parliament had the legislative authority to enact Section 6A, as Article 11 of the Constitution grants Parliament the power to make laws regarding citizenship, even if they conflict with other provisions. They emphasised that Entry 17 of List I in the Seventh Schedule empowers Parliament to legislate on citizenship matters and refuted the petitioners’ claim that Articles 6 and 7 apply to East Pakistan, asserting that these articles operate in different contexts. Additionally, they contended that Article 14 ensures equality in benefits, not liabilities, justifying the differential treatment of Assam based on its unique historical situation and the Assam Accord. They maintained that a statute cannot be struck down simply for not addressing all classes, as Parliament has discretion in legislating varying degrees of harm.

Regarding temporal unreasonableness, the respondents asserted that Section 6A reflects a constitutional tradition of accommodating differences and that there is an underlying rationale for the cut-off dates, challenging the notion that the provision has lost its original purpose. They further argued that Section 6A reinforces multiculturalism and that demographic shifts are unrelated to the provision. They claimed that Article 21 protects both the Assamese community and the rights of foreigners, asserting that Section 6A is a “procedure established by law.”

The Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had intervened in the matter. The detailed written submissions made by CJP and a subsequent note submitted to the Court may be read here.

The Judgement

Majority Opinion authored by Justice Surya Kant for himself, and for Justices M.M.Sundresh and Manoj Misra

On competence of Parliament to enact Section 6A

The Court said that Parliament has the power to enact laws concerning citizenship. This power is explicitly granted by Article 11 of the Constitution. Article 11 states that “nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.” The Court said this language gives Parliament broad powers to create citizenship laws, even if those laws appear to conflict with other provisions in Part II of the Constitution.

The Court also pointed to Entry 17 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which states, “Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens,” as further confirmation of Parliament’s authority over citizenship. The Court explained that the final draft of Article 11 was deliberately amended during the drafting process to remove a clause restricting Parliament’s legislative power. The Court said that this amendment shows that the framers of the Constitution intended to give Parliament significant freedom in crafting laws related to citizenship.

On violation of Article 14

The Court’s Analysis of Section 6A and Article 14

The Court said that Section 6A did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The petitioners had argued that Section 6A unfairly discriminated against the indigenous population of Assam by granting citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh. This, they argued, created an unreasonable classification that violated Article 14.

The Court recognised the Assam Accord as a valid basis for the differential treatment of Assam. The Court said that the Assam Accord, a political agreement aimed at resolving the longstanding conflict over immigration in Assam, represented a negotiated settlement reflecting the state’s particular challenges.

The Court said that Article 14 permits reasonable classifications, meaning that the law can treat different groups differently as long as there is a justifiable reason for doing so. The Court said that the historical context and the political solution reflected in the Assam Accord provided a legitimate basis for the classification created by Section 6A.

The Court also addressed the argument that Section 6A was “manifestly arbitrary” because the cut-off dates and procedures for granting citizenship were unreasonable. The Court negated this argument, saying that the cut-off dates in Section 6A were carefully chosen based on significant historical events rather than being arbitrary. The date of January 1, 1966, was selected because it represented a key moment regarding immigration in Assam. The Court explained that March 25, 1971, was another important date, coinciding with the start of the Bangladesh Liberation War. On this date, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh promised to return refugees who had fled to India, highlighting the humanitarian issues involved.

The Court emphasized that these dates were not just randomly picked but were the result of thoughtful discussions. The Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order of 1972, which granted citizenship retroactively from March 26, 1971, also played a role in recognizing those affected by the war and addressing statelessness. Overall, the Court concluded that the cut-off dates in Section 6A were reasonable and reflected the unique challenges of the time, allowing the law to effectively manage the complexities of immigration in Assam.

On Violation of Article 355

The petitioners claimed that Section 6A violated Article 355 of the Constitution, arguing that granting citizenship to a large number of immigrants could be construed as facilitating “external aggression” and “internal disturbance” within the state of Assam.

However, the court was of the view that 6A being limited in its ambit did not promote or legitimise continuance of migration. 6A rather paves the way for a practical solution to the problem of immigration into Assam by devising an implementable modus operandi, harmonising India’s commitments, international relations and administrative realities.

The judgment further explained that Section 6A was enacted as part of a political solution aimed at resolving the existing conflict and instability in Assam. The court viewed Section 6A as a measure to bring about peace and order in the state rather than a catalyst for further disturbances.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s concurring opinion

1. On violation of Article 29

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud opined that Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1) of the Constitution. He explained that Article 29(1), which guarantees the right of a group of citizens to protect their culture, centers on preventing the state from interfering with a group’s ability to safeguard its own culture. The petitioners argued that Section 6A, by granting citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh, would dilute the Assamese population and adversely affect Assamese culture.

However, Justice Chandrachud stated that the petitioners did not demonstrate how Section 6A would directly prevent the Assamese people from taking steps to preserve their culture. He noted that the petitioners based their argument on the assumption that an increase in the Bengali population in Assam would harm Assamese culture but did not prove how Section 6A would directly result in this outcome.

Furthermore, he pointed out that Assam has other laws that safeguard Assamese culture, including laws mandating the use of the Assamese language in certain contexts. He also highlighted that the cultural and linguistic interests of the citizens of Assam are protected by constitutional and statutory provisions. Therefore, he concluded that Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1) because it does not obstruct the Assamese people from protecting their culture.

2. On Temporal Unreasonableness

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud opined that Section 6A(3) is not unconstitutional on the grounds of temporal unreasonableness. This legal doctrine posits that a law, even if initially constitutional, may become unconstitutional over time due to changing circumstances.

Justice Chandrachud stated that Section 6A(3) intended to create a lasting solution to the issue of migration from Bangladesh into Assam. While he acknowledged that concerns about the dilution of voting rights for people native to Assam due to the influx of migrants played a role in the Assam Accord, he asserted that addressing this specific issue of identification of migrants was not the only purpose of Section 6A(3). He determined that Section 6A(3) could not be deemed unconstitutional solely due to the passage of time, especially considering that the process of identifying and granting citizenship in Assam is an extensive undertaking that can take decades. He stated as follows:

“The principle of temporal unreasonableness cannot be applied to a situation where the classification is still relevant to the objective of the provision. The process of detection and conferring citizenship in Assam is a long-drawn out process spanning many decades. To strike it down due to lapse of time is to ignore the context and object of the provision”

3. On Lack of Process in Section 6A

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud opined that Section 6A(2) cannot be considered unconstitutional because it does not specify a procedure for registration. He stated that the Citizenship Rules, amended in 1987, implement the provisions of Section 6A(3). These rules outline that if the question of a person’s foreign status arises in proceedings other than those under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the matter must be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal for determination.

Although Justice Chandrachud did not directly address the lack of process in Section 6A(2) as raised by the petitioners, it is important to note that he refuted the claim that Section 6A(2) was unconstitutional due to a lack of process. The majority judgement too noted that the many other rules complement the implementation of Sectio 6A and all of them have to be interpreted as one harmonious code.

The Dissent

Justice Pardiwala’s Dissent: Temporal Unreasonableness and Lack of Procedure in Section 6A

Justice J.B. Pardiwala wrote a dissenting judgment, disagreeing with Justice Surya Kant’s conclusion that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was constitutionally valid. Justice Pardiwala found Section 6A unconstitutional, arguing that while it might have been constitutional at the time of its enactment in 1985, the provision had become unconstitutional over time.

Justice Pardiwala pointed to the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, a legal principle that suggests a law, while valid at its enactment, may become arbitrary over time due to changing circumstances. He applied this doctrine to analyzeSection 6A(3), which establishes a procedure for determining the citizenship status of immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. If such individuals are found to be “foreigners”, they are deleted from electoral rolls for ten years.

Justice Pardiwala argued that the low number of immigrants actually detected and deemed “foreigners” under this provision suggests the process has become arbitrary and ineffective. He highlighted that over 40 years have passed since the enactment of Section 6A, and the original objective of the ten-year exclusion from electoral rolls has become meaningless as that timeframe has long since passed.

Justice Pardiwala also criticised Section 6A for its lack of a well-defined procedure. He argued that the provision does not adequately address the process of determining “ordinary residence” in Assam, a key factor in determining eligibility for citizenship under Section 6A. He stated that this lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory application of the law.

In emphasizing the need for temporal limits, he underscored that other immigration and citizenship laws in India have inherent temporal limitations. For instance, Paragraph 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 stipulates that a foreigners tribunal can only adjudicate on an individual’s citizenship status if a reference is received from a competent authority within a specified timeframe. Similarly, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 is centeredaround removing immigrants who entered Assam after a specific date.

Therefore, according to Justice Pardiwala, the lack of a specified timeframe within Section 6A, especially when viewed alongside other related laws, creates inconsistencies and renders the provision susceptible to arbitrary implementation. He concluded that Section 6A fails to provide a fair and reasonable process for determining citizenship, leading to discriminatory outcomes for those who migrated to Assam from Bangladesh during the specified period.

Related:

Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act in 4:1 verdict, creates permanent bench for adjudication

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

Assam government’s efforts to intensify crackdown on “Suspected/Declared Foreigners” sparks fears of brute targeting & rights denials

Supreme Court seeks Assam government’s response on plan to deport over 200 declared foreigners detained in transit camp

Assam: Partial relief, over 9 lakh people to get Aadhaar card, serious questions for excluded 18 lakh

The post Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is constitutional, says Supreme Court in a 4:1 Judgement; Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissents appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The citizenship crisis in Assam is a stark reality that has left countless individuals in a state of uncertainty and despair. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has engaged with those grappling with the fallout of the NRC process, revealing a deeply fragmented experience: while some individuals have finally gained access to their Aadhaar cards, many others remain in limbo, still awaiting resolution. This dissonance highlights the ongoing bureaucratic chaos and the emotional toll it takes on people, who are often caught between the hope of recognition and the fear of exclusion. The narratives shared by these individuals paint a vivid picture of the anguish that accompanies their struggle for identity and belonging in a landscape fraught with suspicion and legal ambiguity. As families grapple with their precarious status, the reality of this citizenship crisis underscores the urgent need for clarity, accountability, and compassion in addressing the rights and identities of all residents of Assam.

Broken livelihoods and shattered trust

Fazrul Hoque from Dhubri speaks to the CJP Assam team about the human cost behind the state’s administrative failures. Hoque is one of those whose Aadhar has been released by the state government. “My company didn’t transfer my salary because I didn’t have an Aadhaar. For five years, I had to use someone else’s account, and now I am fined for it. Getting my Aadhaar now is a relief, but these years of harassment—financial and mental—cannot be erased.”

Struggles of rural Assam: abureaucratic nightmare

Others, like Tanmoy Saha, remain trapped in limbo. His biometrics may have been unlocked, but his Aadhaar is still “in process.” For five long years, Tanmoy has faced numerous obstacles due to the delay. “It’s just another bureaucratic hurdle,” he shares with palpable disappointment.

Hasina Khaoon and Ariful Islam from Darrang district reflect similar frustrations. Both continue to wait for their Aadhaar cards, even after the unlocking of biometrics. “I’ve been stuck for five years because of the NRC biometrics issue,” Ariful says, clearly exhausted. “Others in the same situation have already received their Aadhaar cards, but I am still waiting.”

For many, it wasn’t just about the prolonged wait. The bureaucratic hurdles added a level of trauma, as people were forced to navigate confusing processes with little clarity or help. Noreja Begum from Chirang district recalls the additional distress of losing her biometric enrolment document during the NRC process. This led to a further delay in her Aadhaar issuance. “I couldn’t have done it without the help of CJP. They supported me through the process, and I finally have my Aadhaar, but it has been an extremely difficult journey.”

Daily life on hold: price of locked biometrics

Access to Aadhaar is more than just a document for many. It represents survival and dignity. Rina Ghosh, a mid-day meal worker earning a meagre Rs.1,000 a month, reveals how the locked Aadhaar barred her from basic government benefits. “I was eligible for Orunodoi, free rice, and MPAY housing. But because my Aadhaar was locked, I was denied these essential benefits.” The impact of this deprivation has been particularly severe in rural Assam, where government welfare schemes form a critical safety net for many families.

For others, the damage extends to their political rights as well. Anowara Khatoon from Goalpara finds herself doubly marginalised. Her voter list status is marked ‘D’ (Doubtful voter), stripping her of her right to vote, and her Aadhaar, which was delayed by the NRC process, is finally here—but the name is incorrect. “I feel like I am invisible to the system,” she says.

Humanitarian intervention and accountability

In the face of a broken system, civil and legal rights organisations like Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have stepped up to help. CJP’s field team member, Habibul Bepari, recounts the stories of numerous families who were unaware of their Aadhaar status because their biometrics were locked. “One family had even lost their documents and enrolment numbers,” Bepari recalls. “We helped them retrieve the details and provided them with digital Aadhaar. The relief on their faces was overwhelming.”

But relief is not enough. Nanda Ghosh, CJP’s Assam State In charge, raises the pressing question of accountability. “Over 27 lakh people had their biometrics locked during the NRC update. For five years, they were denied Aadhaar, a basic document to which they are entitled under Aadhaar rules, which state that anyone residing in India for 182 days is eligible. What was their crime?” Ghosh asks pointedly. “The government has announced that 9 lakh people will now get their Aadhaar. But what about the remaining 18 lakh? And for the 9 lakh—don’t they deserve compensation for the injustice they endured?”

An administrative labyrinth

On August 28, 2024, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma announced that the central government had decided to unlock the biometrics of 9.35 lakh people, which were locked during the NRC (National Register of Citizens) process. This would finally allow them access to Aadhaar cards, enabling them to benefit from government welfare schemes like scholarships and social assistance programs. But for many, the question remains—why did it take so long?

The delay in issuing Aadhaar cards apparently stems from a misunderstanding of a Supreme Court order. In 2019, when people excluded from the NRC draft were allowed to appeal, the Assam government collected their biometric data in collaboration with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The rationale was to prevent those excluded from the final NRC from obtaining Aadhaar, as Assamese nationalist groups feared that “illegal migrants” would misuse the document—even though Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.

As per a report of Scroll, in 2022, Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Dev filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court requesting that Aadhaar cards be issued to individuals included in the NRC who had not yet been assigned unique identity numbers. In response to the petition, the union government had informed the Supreme Court on October 13, 2022, that individuals included in the final NRC would receive an Aadhaar number according to the standard operating procedures approved by the Court. However, the union government had also stated that it had withheld the issuance of Aadhaar cards for these individuals because the application receipt numbers from the NRC process had not been provided to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). As per the report of Scroll, this information is documented in an affidavit reviewed by them.

CJP’s petition on denial of Aadhaar linked to NRC in the Gauhati High Court

In 2022, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) in the Gauhati High Court, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate orders regarding the failure to issue Aadhaar cards to eligible citizens. As per the petition, this failure stems from the unjust practice of linking Aadhaar enumeration with the NRC process, which has disproportionately affected marginalised and underprivileged communities, particularly in Assam.

Key concerns raised in the petition:

• CJP emphasizes that the non-enumeration of Aadhaar, mandated under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act (2016), denies access to essential financial subsidies, government services, and welfare schemes. This exclusion primarily impacts those left out of the NRC draft, even though the Aadhaar Act does not link Aadhaar enrolment with citizenship.
• The petition further highlights violations of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations (2016), especially Regulation 12, which requires state agencies to ensure Aadhaar enrolment for beneficiaries through proactive measures like setting up enrolment centres. However, in Assam, Aadhaar enrolment has been delayed, with many of those who were initially excluded from the NRC still without Aadhaar identification.

Thereafter, it is crucial to also highlight that the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had also intervened in the Sushmita Dev v Union of India case [WP (C) No(s).1361/2021] in the Supreme Court since a similar petition of theirs had also been filed in the Gulati High Court. It was highlighted by the CJP that it sought to intervene in the said Writ Petition due to its significant interest in the matter, particularly concerning the implications of linking Aadhaar enrolment with citizenship rights and the NRC process.

Through the Intervening Application, CJP had raised the following key prayers before the Supreme Court-

1. A writ of certiorari to quash any decision blocking Aadhaar enrolment for individuals excluded from the NRC Draft published on July 30, 2019.
2. A writ of mandamus directing Aadhaar enrolment for all persons excluded due to their non-inclusion in the NRC process.
3. Interim relief ensuring that those excluded from Aadhaar due to the NRC process are not deprived of government schemes, welfare measures, banking activities, or the use of PAN cards during the pendency of the petition.

CJP had, through its application, shown its particularly concern about the Union of India’s proposed modalities that link Aadhaar enrolment to the NRC process, potentially affecting both citizens and non-citizens. The Applicant had believed this linkage could cause grave prejudice to the rights of those excluded from the NRC.

This came after the petition that CJP had filed in the Gauhati High Court.

CJP’s grassroot-level work in Assam

CJP’s work has been a crucial intervention in addressing the struggles of marginalised populations, especially in rural areas, with 62% of the affected being women. Through paralegal and legal aid, CJP’s Assam team has provided support to tens of thousands of people who were left out of the NRC’s provisional final list in 2018, which had caused widespread panic and distress among Assam’s population.

In addition to this ground-level work, CJP had also set up a toll-free helpline to assist those struggling to file claims and corrections during the NRC process. Many of these individuals, even after their inclusion in the final NRC list, still lack Aadhaar cards, making them ineligible for various essential services and financial subsidies.

Details of the petition in the High Court (CJP): The petition highlights that 213 out of 300 individuals surveyed, who were included in the NRC, have still not been issued Aadhaar cards, which shows a staggering non-enrolment rate of 71%. Furthermore, even those who were excluded from the NRC have been shut out of the Aadhaar system entirely. This systemic denial of rights, despite no legal link between citizenship and Aadhaar, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities, further deepening the marginalisation of Assam’s poor and agrarian populations.

CJP also underscored the humanitarian aspect of their work, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to providing relief materials, the team has helped families of detainees in Assam’s detention centres secure their release after the Supreme Court directed the release of inmates who had completed two years of detention. This work involved navigating complex bail formalities for over 50 individuals.

The petition filed in the High Court also firmly argues that citizenship and Aadhaar should not be linked, especially given that Aadhaar is required for critical services like banking and government benefits. The ongoing denial of Aadhaar to those excluded from the NRC is a violation of their fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, particularly as the Aadhaar Act itself does not base eligibility on citizenship. If left unaddressed, this exclusion will lead to the continued disenfranchisement of millions, with estimates suggesting that as many as 40 lakh individuals in Assam may still be without Aadhaar.

The petition concludes by urging the Gauhati High Court to issue directions to the authorities to ensure the immediate issuance of Aadhaar cards to all eligible persons, including those excluded from the NRC, so that they may access the full range of benefits and services under government schemes. It calls for the removal of arbitrary barriers and urges the authorities to comply with the mandates of the Aadhaar Act, ensuring that the rights of marginalised populations are upheld in both letter and spirit.

An admission of error: Years too late

According to the Scroll’s report, in July 2023, after three years of relentless pressure, Assam’s home department had finally admitted to misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s directions. The officials acknowledged that there was no legal basis for withholding Aadhaar cards, resulting in over 9 lakh people being denied essential entitlements for half a decade.

This admission of error, however, does little to console those affected. There is also confusion regarding the actual number of people whose biometrics were blocked. While the Assam government initially reported that 27.43 lakh individuals had their biometrics collected during NRC re-verification, officials now state that only 9.35 lakh actually did. This miscalculation further highlights the inefficiency and administrative chaos that has plagued the Aadhaar-NRC debacle.

Living in limbo

The unlocking of biometrics raises another uncomfortable reality for many in Assam—those who were excluded from the final NRC can now get Aadhaar cards, but their citizenship status remains in limbo. Without official rejection orders from the NRC, these individuals cannot appeal their citizenship cases in foreigners’ tribunals. In this odd legal paradox, they are given access to Aadhaar while simultaneously being marked as stateless, adding another layer of uncertainty to their lives.

The road ahead

Despite the unlocking of biometrics, the struggle for justice in Assam is far from over. While the recent announcement brings a measure of relief to many, it also exposes a labyrinth of unresolved issues that have persisted for years. Questions about transparency, accountability, and compensation remain pressing concerns for those affected by the NRC process.

For individuals like Fazrul Hoque from Dhubri and Anowara Khatoon from Goalpara, the unlocking of their biometrics signifies more than just the potential to access government benefits; it represents a long-awaited acknowledgment of their identity and citizenship. Anowara’s frustration is compounded by the fact that her voter status is marked ‘D,’ effectively disenfranchising her despite her new Aadhaar card containing incorrect information.

Others, like Hasina Khaoon and Ariful Islam echo similar sentiments of confusion and frustration. Hasina is still waiting for her Aadhaar card, unsure of the reasons for the delay, while Ariful feels trapped in limbo, watching others receive their cards while he remains stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. Noreja Begum emphasises the emotional toll and the harrowing experience of losing critical documents, while Rina Ghosh illustrates the dire consequences of being denied access to essential services due to the locked Aadhaar making her struggle even more painful.

The unlocking of biometrics has also highlighted the plight of individuals who, despite the process being completed, are still in a waiting game. Tanmoy Saha, for instance, continues to face challenges as his Aadhaar remains “in process.” His disappointment reflects a broader reality that many have endured: years of hardship without access to vital identity documents.

Moreover, the fear of selective profiling and discrimination looms large. Amidst a backdrop of politically charged rhetoric from leaders like Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, doubts persist about whether the government can truly ensure equitable access to services for all citizens, regardless of their background. This climate of suspicion undermines trust in governance and raises significant concerns about the future of citizenship and identity in Assam.

The broader implications of these issues extend beyond individual hardships. They call into question the very foundations of democracy and the principles of justice and equality that underpin it. As affected individuals continue to fight for their rights and recognition, they advocate not only for themselves but also for a more inclusive and transparent system that respects the dignity of all citizens.

In this context, accountability from the state becomes essential. Advocacy groups, including CJP, emphasise the need for comprehensive policies that address the injustices faced by those affected by the NRC process. They argue that it is crucial for the government to not only unlock biometrics but also provide compensation for the suffering endured by individuals and families during these tumultuous years.

As Assam navigates this complex landscape, the road ahead will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders—government officials, civil society, and the public—to ensure that the rights and dignity of every citizen are upheld. Only through collective action and a commitment to justice can the state begin to heal from the wounds of this prolonged crisis, paving the way for a more equitable future for all.

Related:

Eviction tragedy in Assam: Two killed during eviction drive as police firing sparks allegations of government bias

Assam government’s efforts to intensify crackdown on “Suspected/Declared Foreigners” sparks fears of brute targeting & rights denials

New Assam Muslim Marriages & Divorces Bill: Reform or politics?

Assam: Partial relief, over 9 lakh people to get Aadhaar card, serious questions for excluded 18 lakh

The post Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Married into a Rajbongshi family in the 1990s, Fulkumari originally hailing from the neighbouring state of West Bengal saw her dreams of a peaceful life shatter as she was marked as a ‘D’ voter shortly after enrolling as a voter in her new community.

Fulkumari’s journey from being a young bride to facing the harsh realities of being designated a ‘D’ voter on the official list has been nothing short of a mental and emotional ordeal. The new tag plunged her into a world of uncertainty, and has cast a shadow over her identity and deprived her of her basic rights.

Born and raised in West Bengal, Fulkumari’s arrival in Pokalagi village was marked by happiness and excitement of a new beginning as she embarked on her journey as a married woman. Enrolling as a voter was meant to symbolise her official integration into the community.

However, fate had other plans as a few years later she found herself  labelled as a ‘D’ voter.  This incident seemed to promise to alter the course of her life forever. This year it has been almost a decade of her suffering through the crisis.

Fulkumari’s daily existence is affected by the constant reminder of the status of her citizenship, a label that made suspect not just her voting rights, but also her entire identity and existence. The weight of this situation bore heavily on her health and life, and led to a struggle with mental trauma that has continued through the years.

Despite her desire for justice, Fulkumari’s financial instability stood as an impossible barrier preventing her from challenging her ‘D’ voter status in court. This lack of resources held her back from accessing a system that could help correct this situation and restore her dignity. As the years went by, she also found herself prevented from accessing government welfare schemes, which further worsened her hardships, and thus this vicious circle kept pushing her downwards into despair.

In Fulkumari Barman’s own words, this suffering felt like a curse she had no control over, despite her birth in the very heart of the nation. Her story sheds light on the larger struggle faced by countless individuals who find themselves trapped in bureaucratic mazes, unable to break free in Assam.

Related:

CJP moves NCM against arms training camps, weapon distribution events in Assam and Rajasthan

97-year Old Abandoned by Lawyer, CJP Steps in to Help

CJP Impact: Omesha bibi, another marginalised woman suspected of being a foreigner, declared Indian!

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

The post A decade of suffering, unyielding pursuit of citizenship by Assam woman appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But for Basu Bewa a lack of communication from the advocate in recent months left her and her family in distress and in despair, and very uncertain about their future.

In addition, Basu Bewa’s encounter with unknown authorities had left her traumatised. She dreaded that they might come to take her away to a detention centre, a fear that ran so deep she could no longer sleep or eat properly. The mere presence of strangers sent her trembling as she recalled the day she received the dreaded notice. It seemed like hope was slipping away from her and her family who were already living with very less means and now faced an uncertain future. Her son Abdul was in tears while narrating his mother’s circumstances.

After CJP’s team members in Assam learned about Basu Bewa’s tragic circumstances and decided to step in to offer support. Habibul Bepari, the District Voluntary Motivator (DVM) from CJP, reached out to the distraught family and assured them that they were not alone in this battle. CJP promised to communicate with the advocate handling Basu Bewa’s case and provide every possible assistance to help her.

CJP’s involvement and strong assurance brought a glimmer of hope to Basu Bewa and her family. They felt a sense of relief knowing that help was near. CJP’s visit instilled confidence in them that justice could be something that is attainable for Basu Bewa too.

With a long history of humanitarian work with people affected by the citizenship crisis, CJP’s work and dedication speaks volumes about their dedication to upholding justice and compassion. Beyond the legal battles fought in courtrooms, the team retains the heart and compassion to understand the human suffering that comes with such cases. They understand that the citizenship crisis affects a person in many ways and is not just limited to one single bureaucratic hurdle faced in court. Thereby, the team is notably equipped to assist victims with several issues, and also is constantly in touch with who are or have been in the past affected by the crisis. In the scorching heat, where uncertainty loomed over the lives of many, Basu Bewa’s story stands out as a testament to the resilience of the human spirit retrieving hope as it was almost extinguished.

Related:

Assam CM sparks outrage for remarks on ‘Miya’ Community, criticised for divisive language

CJP’s arduous task of rehabilitating citizens continues unabated

CJP Impact: Omesha bibi, another marginalised woman suspected of being a foreigner, declared Indian!

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

The post 97-year old left in legal limbo as lawyer abandons case, CJP comes to the rescue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The family had not– until CJP was contacted– responded to the noticed served to the person. Recognising the gravity of the issue, CJP’s team endeavoured to counsel the family and help them with any issues they would face given this notice.

Despite acutely inclement weather and challenging weather conditions, CJP’s team personally visited the family. The team had already previously guided them over the phone in submitting all the necessary documents at the local police station, however the family wanted the team to visit them in person.

The family’s insistence on an in-person meeting to discuss the sudden notice and its implications was met with understanding and compassion. DVM Habibul Bepari, CJP’s District Voluntary Motivator, engaged in detailed conversations with the family, explaining the citizenship issue and the grave consequences of ignoring a tribunal summons, even if it had been served to a deceased person.

Apart from the citizenship concerns, the village also was facing the deadly impact of river erosion. The natural calamity took a huge toll on the community, adding to their struggles. In addition to battling nature’s fury, the villagers found themselves burdened with suspicion and uncertainty, as the state continues to question their status, labelling some as suspected foreigners.

Despite the adversities posed by the floods and river erosion, Habibul Bepari’s presence offered hope and reassurance to the villagers. People affected by the citizenship crisis often are marginalised at multiple levels, which makes their ability to prove themselves as Indian even more difficult. CJP recognises that and thereby has a multipronged approach, which is not restricted to solely proving their Indian status. CJP maintains a sustained relation with citizens long after they’ve been freed of the legal hurdles, understanding that this grave crisis can be a lifelong process. Our endeavour and aim is to ensure, from bottom up, village, district, Foreigner Tribunal to constitutional courts, the grave injustices faced by the Indian citizenry on these issues are effectively resolved.

Related:

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

Assam Woman granted Indian Citizenship after CJP’s tireless advocacy

The Notorious Foreigners’ Tribunals of Assam

CJP helps almost 100 year old woman defend her citizenship in Assam

The post Assam Citizenship Crisis: Family forced to prove deceased member’s citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.