What does the CAA 2019 do?

The CAA amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 which defines “illegal migrants”. Through the amendment, a new proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act. As per the same, persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and who have been exempted by the Central government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, or the Foreigners Act, 1946, shall not be treated as “illegal migrant”. Consequently, such persons shall be eligible to apply for citizenship under the 1955 Act.

However, in what is clearly violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, the law specifically excludes the Muslim community from the proviso, triggering protests across the country and a slew of petitions before the Supreme Court. The Indian Union Muslim league and at least 149 others have challenged this amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioners challenging the law have submitted that the CAA discriminates against Muslims on the basis of religion. Such religious segregation is without any reasonable differentiation and violates right to quality under Article 14, it has been contended. On December 18, 2019, the apex court had issued notice to the Union of India on that challenge. However since the Rules had not then been framed, the union government had argued against any stay on the amended law.

IUML today challenges notification of CAA Rules

Bar & Bench reported that the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) one of the Petitioners that had originally challenged the constitutionality of the Act in 2020 has now moved the Supeme Court (SC) to stay Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024. IUM: L, a Kerala-based political party, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), has moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.The IUML (petitioner), which was one of the first parties to challenge the CAA before the top court in 2019, has now approached the Court to stay the Rules. In 2019, the IUML had also pressed for a stay on the implementation of the Act. However, the Union government had told the Court then that since the rules had not been framed, the implementation of CAA would not take place.

With the Rules being notified on Monday, March 11, the IUML has now moved the Court seeking a stay on the Rules. IUML has also sought directions to refrain from taking action against persons belonging to Muslim community who have been deprived of the benefit to apply for citizenship under the Rules.

As per the application filed, the rules notified on March 11, create a highly truncated and fast-tracked process for grant of citizenship to persons covered under the exemption created by Section 2(1)(b) of the Act, which defines who will not be treated as an “illegal immigrant”. This, the plea states, is manifestly arbitrary and creates an unfair advantage in favour of a class of persons solely on the ground of their religious identity, which is impermissible under articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

States protest

As soon as the much feared news broke, questions were raised over motive, intent. Anxiety prevailed especially for the Indian Muslim community but the Rajbanshis of Bengal and Adivasis and small farmers are no less anxious.

This article in Sabrangindia traces the bigotry behind the enactment.

The chief ministers of the governments of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala released strong statements, not only expressing their condemnation of the CAA, but also asserting that the discriminatory Act would not be implemented in their states and would be contested.

Several commentators have criticised the move as one driven by cynical electoral politics, questioning why the Centre released the Rules at this moment after four years of delays, and condemning the exclusion of Muslims, Sri Lankan Tamils, and many others from the Rules’ criteria. Besides, concerns have been expressed, again, about the over 1,00,000 Afghani refugees whom India has given shelter due to persecution in their home country and similarly close to 40,000 Rohingyas who have fled Myanmaar. Sri Lankan Tamils too reside in many parts of Tamil Nadu and are likely to be (now or in future) be harassed by a vicarious bureaucracy over this amendment.

Since this ignominious amendment was passed, serious questions have been raised on how exactly the government would verify claims of religious persecution, what parameters would be used, and what digital security measures were in place to ensure that the personal data of applicants would remain safe from tampering.

All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) posted at 10:32 pm on Mon, Mar 11, 2024:
“If the CAA cancels anyone’s citizenship, we will not remain silent.” – Smt @MamataOfficial

“If the CAA cancels anyone’s citizenship, we will not remain silent.” – Smt @MamataOfficial

We await clarification on the new rules under CAA. Bengal will not tolerate any disturbance, and we will not allow this contentious law to deprive anyone. pic.twitter.com/7K423IX8pE

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) March 11, 2024

Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan released the following statement on twitter

The Central Government's notification of the Rules to the Citizenship Amendment Act in the wake of the elections is aimed at disquieting the nation. The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued the notification regarding the CAA, just ahead of the announcement of the elections to the…

— Pinarayi Vijayan (@pinarayivijayan) March 11, 2024

Chief Minister Tamil Nadu was clear and straightforward

Union BJP Government's divisive agenda has weaponised the Citizenship Act, turning it from a beacon of humanity to a tool of discrimination based on religion and race through the enactment of #CAA. By betraying Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, they sowed seeds of division.

Despite… pic.twitter.com/mbraX6SW10

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) March 11, 2024

Other protests

Assam’s chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, has openly threatened that political parties faced the risk of deregistration if they organised anti-CAA protests, citing a ruling of the Gauhati high court in 2023 that declared bandhs as “illegal and unconstitutional”. Meanwhile reports of protests in in Kerala’s Kozhikode, compelled the police to go on a lathi charge. Besides, , late-night vigils were held by student organisations including Fraternity, MSF, and NSU(I) at Jamia Millia Islamia and Hyderabad Central University. The Quint reported protests breaking out against the notification of the Rules on the very same day across multiple districts in Assam. The Indian Express reported student unions burn copies of the CAA, and the opposition declaring a statewide ‘hartal’ on March 13.

A questionable process

A close look at the Rules themselves reveal that applications for the CAA are to be made via an online portal (indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in), on which applicants would be then issued with a digital certificate of registration or a digital certificate of naturalisation.

The Rules further confirm that only persons from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who belong to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian identities would be considered for citizenship under the Act. A person making an application through the CAA for citizenship would thus need to provide a minimum of five to six documents. These include:

1. 1. i) a filled application form;
   2. ii) one of the documents listed under Schedule IA of the Act, including but not limited to land or tenancy records from the origin country, birth certificates, identity documents, land or tenancy records;

iii) one of the documents from Schedule IB such as ration card, Aadhaar card, license, any letter issued by the Government or Court to the applicant with an official stamp, land or tenancy records, electricity papers, school leaving certificates, and others;

1. 1. iv) an affidavit verifying the correctness of statements made, as attested by a Notary/Oath Commissioner/Magistrate;
   2. v) a document providing evidence that an applicant or either of their parents was a citizen of Independent India (passport or birth certificate); and
   3. vi) if available, the copy of an expired Foreign Passport or Residential Permit

This completed application would then be processed by a District Level Committee, and then if verified, the designated officer would administer an oath of allegiance to the applicant in person, then sent to the Empowered Committee. The final digital certificate would be issued with the signature of the chairman of the Empowered Committee.

The online portal further includes guidelines for the composition of the two committees. The Empowered Committee, headed by the Director of Census Operations, is to be formed by an intelligence bureau officer, a Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, a State Informatics Officer, a Postal Officer or Post Master General, a representative of the Railways and from the office of the Principal or Additional Chief Secretary. The District Level Committee would compromise a District Informatics Officer,  representative not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, a nominee of the Central Government, and a jurisdictional Station Master of Railways. The required quorum for each of the Committees is only two.

Curiously this aspect of the affidavit to be enclosed with the application for citizenship has raised eyebrows and generated comment:

The entire process leaves room for corruption and mistreatment of applicants both at the District Level Committee and with the Empowered Committee.

Who is the DLC and EC? The composition is questionable , which includes Intelligence Bureau officers and vaguely described nominees of the central government, with their meagre quorum of two individuals, creates an uncertain and unfair system of authentication and evaluation.

There are limited measures to check any oversight by members of the District Level and Empowered Committees and to prevent the abuse of power, leaving scope for harassment and abuse. The requirements for documentation themselves discriminate against Muslim, queer, Dalit, Migrant Workers, Farmers and other marginalised individuals who may no longer have access to documents in Schedule IA and IB.

Other serious questions remain: How far will states resist the Centre’s imposition of the CAA? How much can they resist?

The BJP-RSS led Union Government has repeatedly stated that the CAA is not intended for Indian citizens, differs from the National Register of Indian Citizens, and is solely intended for foreigners, the guidelines for accessing a digital certificate of registration seem relevant in their applicability to any suspected ‘foreigners’ in India, along with their connections to the NPR and NRC. In the midst of such a scenario, will those with relative social, economic, and cultural capital choose not to register themselves under the discriminatory Act as an act of protest?

How far should Indian citizens go and what constitutional measures are tenable in the long-term resistance of an unconstitutional Act?

With the elections near –and only some of the opposition parties vocal on the issue—the questions will re-surface. CJP’s experience, every day in the state of Assam, battling the citizenship crisis reveals, that if NPR-and NRC are also implemented as is threatened by this regime—social turmoil will result.

Background

In 2019, The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), from its official twitter handle has deleted a tweet on Amit Shah’s comment on a pan-India NRC (National Register of Citizens). It is not clear when the tweet was deleted, but the move is quite surprising given the fact that Amit Shah has gone on record to say that come what may, there will be no going back on the NRC.

The deleted tweet

(Source – The Week)

Earlier in 2019 during the LokSabha campaign, Amit Shah had promised to remove every single infiltrator from the country by implementing a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC). He had said, “We have promised in our manifesto that once Narendra Modi forms the government again, we will implement the NRC across the country. We will remove every single infiltrator from the country. And all the Hindu and Buddhist refugees…we will find each of them, give them Indian citizenship and make them residents here.”

During his rallies in West Bengal where Mamata Banerjee has been one of the most vehement critics of the NRC, he had said that the BJP would ensure that each infiltrator would be thrown into the Bay of Bengal no matter how strongly it was opposed and by whom.

Citizens for Justice and Peace cjp.org.in) has been tracking the government’s moves on the issue consistently

November 2022

Has implementation of CAA 2019 already begun?

The MHA has delegated to 31 districts powers to grant citizenship as per the CAA: The Ministry of Home Affairs in its 2021-22 Annual Report has revealed that it has delegated powers under Citizenship Act to grant citizenship under the controversial 2019 amendment. Delegated powers have been “given” to Collectors of 13 more districts and Home Secretaries of 2 more states. With this, Collectors of 29 districts and Home Secretaries of 9 States have been authorized to grant citizenship in respect of foreigners belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and Christian or Parsi community from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

March 2024

How the Union of India took a giant step towards both NPR & NRC in 2015 without informed consent

This step was taken when information contained in the Aadhaar database was linked with the NPR database without informed consent, a CJP investigation with collaboration indicates

Related:

How dangerous is the CAA + NRC?

CJP spreads awareness on NPR-NRC in Maharashtra

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS) ABOUT THE CAB/CAA 2019

WHO IS AN INDIAN? (ENGLISH)

CITIZENSHIP LAWS IN INDIA – FAQS

The “CAA”t is out of the bag

BJP deletes Amit Shah’s comment about NRC from its Twitter handle

The post Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the only legal way of linking the two databases is by acquiring informed consent from every resident through an exercise similar to the Census, which means through a public exercise conducted by the Registrar General of India (RGI), the process appears to have happened without any informed consent.

There is yet another angle or twist. In 2020, at the height of the nationwide agitation against the CAA-NPR-NRC, the union government had announced that the Census (now not conducted since 2011 and which was statutorily due in 2021) will also conduct the NPR simultaneously. There was an outcry of protest against this with several state governments calling for a boycott against answering those questions in the Census form that had to do with the NPR.

Four specific questions included in the NPR-NRC especially the one concerning parents’ places and dates of birth had been added. Pushed into a corner by several unaffiliated state governments, the Home Ministry was compelled to admit, that answering questions in the NPR is purely voluntary while under the Census Ac, 1948, there is a legal obligation to answer all questions put every ten years. The Census process is oral and conducted by designated officers of the RGI without any document that takes or asks for signatures. Census data collection, house-listing and household data collection is crucial for understanding demographics and formulation of policies.

In contrast, the enumeration for the NPR can only be conducted under the provisions of The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 which in fact go beyond the Section amended Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (amended in 2004) and are therefore arguably ultra vires of the Act itself. Section 14A of the amended Citizenship Act, 1955 (amendment in 2004) states simply that the government “may compulsorily register every citizen as a citizen of India and issue a national identity card to him”. It is the Rules that ascribe the process of NPR enumeration not the Act. Both Section 14A and the Rules are currently under multiple challenges in the Supreme Court.

Given this background to the manner in which the union government has been reluctant to share information publicly, also given its doubtful credentials over data collection and maintenance of data integrity, 2023 brought another surprise.

The Annual Report 2021-22 of MHA declared that crucial personal data –that can only be collected through a rigorous door to door enumeration process by officials under the Registrar General of India (RGI) and which includes Name, Gender, Date and Place of Birth, Place of Residence, Father’s and Mother’s Name was (already) collected, albeit in secretive manner, by seeding Aadhar. Mobile and Ration Card. A series of RTIs has led us to conclude that the exercise was conducted without the informed consent of Indians. A further scrutiny of MHA Reports of 2010, 2015-2016 and 2020 raise more questions.

The scale of NPR-Aadhaar linkage

How many of the NPR updated records contain the details from the Aadhaar card and have the Aadhaar number?

While the 2020 NPR Manual mentions that Aadhaar numbers in the NPR booklet came from the 2015-2016 exercise of “updating the NPR”, the RGI is silent on this and repeated efforts under Right to Information Act (RTI) to the RGI have not helped clarify the exact scale of the linkage. The 2014-15 Annual Report of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) says that the “data digitization process has been completed” and a database of “119.19 crore persons created.” The 2017-18 Annual Report of MHA contradicts this and says that, ” demographic data of 119.95 crore persons was collected in 2010 and has been updated during 2015- 16 in all States / UTs except Assam and Meghalaya”.

While there are several annual reports of MHA that give a count of the NPR records linked with Aadhaar numbers, those reports correspond to the period before the updating exercise of 2015-16. The Annual Report of 2014-15 states that NPR data of more than 23.51 crores persons has been set to UIDAI for duplication and generation of Aadhaar number, of which UIDAI generated 19.67 crores Aadhaar numbers, which is in turn a quarter of the 80.46 crore Aadhaar database generated by UIDAI.=

This number could only have grown after the 2015-16 exercise, which was intended to be a giant leap for the scale of linkage. The official records are clear that the leap did take place, but unclear on the scale or implications.

Is the NPR-Aadhaar linkage illegal?

The NPR database is distinct from the Aadhaar database. While the former draws strength from the amended section 14A of the Citizenship Act, that provides for the possibility of a National Identity Card for Citizens (Rules outline the NPR as the procedure to achieve this). The Aadhar card is simply a proof of residence, with biometric data collection to enable access to government schemes etc. The legal provision for Aadhaar came through the Aadhaar Act of 2016, which made informed consent of the holder of the Aadhaar number mandatory for its use for any specific purpose. After the 2018 judgement in the Aadhaar case limiting its proliferation (that struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act that enabled private entities to use Aadhaar data for services), serious issues of policy incursions into privacy have also been flagged.

The issue is complex. In 2010, an exercise thereafter amended, demographic information for the NPR were collected through a door-to-door enumeration process conducted by RGI, on the basis of a signed form; thereafter this exercise was abandoned. The Aadhaar number was assigned by the UIDAI authorities after the collection of biometric data including photographs, ten fingerprints and IRIS prints. The Aadhaar number is supposed to be the link between the records of one person in the two databases.

However, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 did not provide for linking of two databases controlled by two different agencies. Data for Aadhaar had actually been collected by various private agencies through camps, and not through any door-to-door visit by enumerators engaged by RGI. The wholesale linkage that happened till 2015, without specific consent of any of the Aadhaar number holders, was not backed by that law or any other law. Thus, the legitimacy of NPR – as of 2015 – is highly questionable.

Besides, the very purpose of NPR has been to establish residency (and then citizenship) on the basis of documentation, shifting the burden of proof on an individual that will then expose himself to the tyranny of a local bureaucracy controlled by governments. Absence or anomalies in these documents will lead to arbitrary exclusions from the “ordinary residents” (citizenship list) causing untold hardships and social upheavals. As the lived current experience of the state of Assam reveals. The process if not just fundamentally unfair, the ultra vires process exposes the defenceless individual to the judgment of local authorities.

Come 2019 December and the passage of the religion biased Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) caused outrage. Assertions by senior functionaries of the present union government that the implementation of the CAA-NPR-NRC would “follow a chronology” led to legitimate fears that this was the aggressive first step to use the tyranny of a bureaucratic document test to exclude hundreds of thousands of disempowered and marginalized Indians from their citizenship. Any day now fears of this “chronology” being set in motion may be realized as the CAA Rules (pending since 2019 when the Act was passed) are underway.

Assam has to date spent Rs 1,700 crores on an excruciating exercise that has caused burdens on the not just the state but a third plus of the 3.3 crore population. Arbitrary exclusions have been marked by baseless “notices” being sent by the Assam Border Police and Foreigner Tribunals (adjudicating bodies controlled by the state executive) and while a significant 2, 22, 000 citizens and their families reel under the burden of either being excluded from the NRC or being declared “suspected foreigners” or “D” Voters, our experience on the ground shows that 99 per cent or more are “genuine’ Indians!

The linkage of NPR with the Aadhaar database –without informed consent—and in a hasty and secretive manner– creates further possibility of anomalies and mismatch in documents Added to this, the the proviso, contained in the 2003 Rules that shift the burden of proof on individuals to “prove” citizenship is a recipe made for largescale social disaster and a humanitarian crisis.

It was this belated realization that had most likely led the MHA to abandon the pilot project begun earlier (obliquely referred to MHA Annual Report 2008-09).The complication referred to here is the lack of documentation of genuine citizens in this country, and also the imbalance of the power equation between the common man and the local face of the government. The same complications apply equally to genuine residents.

A union government that is truly representative of all Indians will, from the Assam experience, understanbd this. An unaccountable regime may not.

(The author is a senior journalist and Secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace)

Reference: https://cjp.org.in/cjp-exclusive-how-the-union-of-india-took-a-giant-step-towards-both-npr-nrc-in-2015-without-informed-consent/

(A collective citizens’ investigation by Metiabruz Kolkatta in close collaborators with Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in))

Related:

Policing & Profiling Citizens: Using Aadhar data to create an NPR, profiling Christians?

Will recently amended Birth Registration law be (mis)used to curb voting rights, even launch the dreaded NPR?

The post Creating an NPR for an all India NRC without informed consent? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Indiastack is used to refer to the set of Application programming Interface (APIs) which are offering services to facilitate paperless communication. The APIs include Aadhar, eKYC, e-Aadhar and Digilocker. Just seven days back, last Tuesday, the Lok Sabha passed The Registration of Births & Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2023on August 1st, 2023. This bill seeks to amend the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 

What should we know about the amendment and why?

Since Privacy is a fundamental right, and as the world gets more data driven, it is necessary for us to understand the infrastructure that is used by both the governments and other stakeholders to store, process and handle our data, Citizens’ Data. After all, the government is also an entity that is capable of infringing upon the rights of people, as we see and experience every day.  This amendment allows the government to build a central level data base of all deaths and births.

Therefore, it is important to understand the law that the government is using to build such infrastructure.  

What is the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969?

The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (the 1969 Act) seeks to register births and deaths and gives power to the Union Government to appoint a Registrar-General of India (RGI).

This law empowers the state government to appoint a Chief Registrar for the state, District Registrars for each District and Registrar for such local area as the state may deem fit.

While the Central, State and District Registrars mostly have coordinating functions, it is the local Registrars who have been entrusted with registering information on births and deaths.

How does the Registrar know about all the Births and Deaths from the area? The duty is entrusted on each of us, specifically and generally i.e., if a birth or death occurs in a household,  the head of the household, if it is in a hospital or such institution-the medical officer in charge or any authorised person, in case of a birth or death in a jail-the Jailer etc.

Due to the timing of the Act, the information in the registrars has not been made into one centralised database but has been kept decentralised. The Registrar was tasked with giving the certificates of registration to any persons who wants them. If you wanted a birth certificate, you would need go to the local registrar. 

What does the current amendment do?

The amendment-which has not yet been passed by the Rajya Sabha at the time of writing this article-if effective would mandate that the state Registrars share their database with the Registrar General of India (RGI).

Secondly, upon approval of the central government, this database can be made available to authorities dealing with preparation or maintenance of databases relating to the population register.

Now the issue of the National Population Register (NPR) linked to and in many ways a precursor to the contentious and dreaded National Register of Citizens (NRC) and therefore, given that no dicennial Census of India has been taken place since 2011, given that the NRC-NPR issue is a sword hanging over the heads of the Indian people, such steps, of the union government seeking data over births and deaths, could be a roundabout route to begin the process of creating an NPR.

Under the amended law, passed by the Lok Sabha –without any debate or referral to the Parliamentary Select Committee—it also means that Electoral rolls, Aadhaar Number, Ration Card, Passport, Driving Licence, Property Registration and such other databases at the National Level as may be notified and access/control of the data given to the union government[1] The list is therefore not exhaustive, and the government can empower itself and simply notify other databases in future in whose preparation, the births and deaths database could be used for.

The same powers have been given to the Chief Registrar of the State in collating all the information from the Registrars in the state.

Since the bill seeks to build a national level database, it also empowers the Registrar to enter the particulars of Death or Birth in electronic manner along with on paper.

The bill also empowers the local Registrar to collect the Aadhar numbers of the parents and whoever is informing the Registrar of the Birth, when he is entering the information of the birth. It also places duty on Adoptive Parents in case of non-institutional adoption, Single Parent in case of birth of a child to a single parent or unwed mother from her womb; the Biological Parent in case of Surrogacy and other such institutions in specific cases to inform the Registrar General of the Birth.[2]

The bill also states that the certificate obtained at birth, under this renewed act shall be used to prove the date and place of birth of a person who is born on or after the date of commencement of the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023, for the purposes of— (a) admission to an educational institution; (b) issuance of a driving licence; (c) preparation of a voter list; (d) registration of a marriage; (e) appointment to a post in the Central Government or State Government or a local body or public sector undertaking or in any statutory or autonomous body under the Central Government or State Government; (f) issuance of a passport; (g) issuance of an Aadhaar number; and (h) any other purpose as may be determined by the Central Government.[3]

Changes and Shifts made by the Bill

Essentially, the bill makes three major changes. One is that it centralises the births and deaths database, which was not the case until now.

Second, the bill makes it possible for this central database to be used for preparation of other databases such as electoral rolls, property registration etc and additionally, the government has power to notify any other databases that could take help from this national database. Finally, the bill mandates that the birth certificate obtained from Registrar be used for purposes including admission to educational institutions, preparation of electoral rolls, the appointment to a government post or any other purpose as notified by the Central Government.

What are the Implications?

Right to Education:A bare reading of the bill and the act makes it seems clearly  like the bill cannot see the (marginalised) population that would be out of reach of the state’s regularising measures. For example, with respect to school admission, it conditions the right to education- a fundamental right-on the Birth Certificate for those who are born after the bill comes into force.

Right to Vote: While there is still some debate on whether Right to Vote is a fundamental right or a statutory right, there is consensus on its primordial nature for the democratic system to survive. While proof of age is important to decide whether one is eligible to vote, the emphasis on a birth certificate could curtail this right indirectly.

Data Privacy etc: The sharing of databases with any national authority just with the consent of central government or state government in cases of central and state databases respectively takes away any control the person has on their birth data. Moreover, there are no guidelines or directions within the amendment or the act for the government while it chooses which other database could take help from the national births’ database. This gives an all-encompassing power to the government-a delegation without any direction.

While it is important to make public services efficient, the (over) Centralisation of Data, which has been a project for the governments, has not really fetched results. The centralisation is also not the only problem. The crucial issue lies in the lack of concern for the exclusion (of peoples and populations marginalised) this bill legitimises and the absence of any provisions to fill in such gap.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

[1] Section 5, THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2023

[2] Section 7

[3] Section 13.

Related:

Census is not a priority for the Union government

Backdoor NPR-NRC? Parents DOB for KYC; great grandfather’s address for passport re-issue

Is CAA 2019 stealthily making its way into our lives?

The post Will recently amended Birth Registration law be (mis)used to curb voting rights, even launch the dreaded NPR? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has declared computer resources related Census and National Population Register (NPR) to be ‘Critical Information Infrastructure (CII)’ and ‘protected system’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000. This means that any tampering or unauthorised access to the data associated with Census applications, NPR database or the data centres of the Registrar General of India (RGI) will be punishable with ten years imprisonment.

Under the IT Act’s section 70, CII is defined as:

“computer resource, the incapacitation or destruction of which, shall have debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety.”

The National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) is the nodal agency for taking measures to protect the nation’s critical information infrastructure and is mandated to guard CIIs from “unauthorised access, modification, use, disclosure, disruption, incapacitation or distraction through coherent coordination, synergy and raising information security awareness among all stakeholders”, under the IT Act. The agency monitors national-level threats to CII.

Its functions include protection of CII, ensuring compliance, developing capabilities for real time warning system and facilitate sharing of information on emerging threats, cyber-attacks and so on.

It basically means that the NPR and Census database will be stored in duly protected computer systems that ought not to be tampered with and if tampered with it will amount to a serious offence with a punishment of up to 10 years and also a penalty. Undoubtedly, information collected during Census is imperative and any breach to it is a matter of national security and the MHA has –through a simple notification –now brought the controversial and un-tested process of the NPR —on the same footing as the Census.

The MHA notification may be read here:

Updating NPR

The Government prepared a National Population Register (NPR) of all the ‘usual residents’ in the country in 2010 by collecting specific information of each resident. This was under the United Progressive Alliance (I) government). The NPR was mandated through ‘Rules’ brought in in 2003 to the Citizenship Act, 1955. These Rules have not been extensively debated or discussed in Parliament. The previously conducted NPR in 2010 included the collection of biometric data of people which was then incorporated into the Aadhar database. However, the 2003 Rules nowhere mention that the NPR is or must be conducted periodically or after every 10 years.

In 2015, a few fields such as Name, Gender, Date and Place of Birth, Place of Residence and Father’s and Mother’s name were updated and Aadhaar, Mobile and Ration Card Numbers were collected.

The latest Annual report of MHA states that there is need to update NPR soon in order to “incorporate the changes due to birth, death and migration”. Concerns about such fields being added have raised legitimate concerns of this being a backdoor exercise in collected documented data on individuals which may or will thereafter be used by the State to declare the citizenship of individuals ‘doubtful.’ The MHA had then resolved to update the NPR database in the entire country except the State of Assam along with the House listing Phase of Census 2021 during April to September, 2020. This process got delayed due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic.

For updating the NPR database, a three-pronged approach would be adopted. It will include

1. Self-updating wherein it is proposed to allow residents to update their own data fields after following some authentication protocols on a web portal,

2. Updating of NPR data in paper format and

3. Mobile mode.

As per the report, a pre-test on NPR updation was undertaken in the selected areas of all the States/UTs. It further clarifies that demographics and other particulars will be collected during this updation exercise and no documents or biometrics would be collected. The report however does not mention a specific date or time period for carrying out Census and NPR in the near future.

The Annual Report may be read here:

Census vs. NPR

NPR is a National Population Register which will contain the details of all the ‘usual residents’ of the country regardless of whether they are citizens or non-citizens of India. An electronic database of more than 119 crore usual residents of the country have already been created under NPR which was created in 2010 along with House listing and Housing Census 2010. The Government of India has also stated that the NPR Database has been updated in 2015-16 in all States/UTs (except Assam and Meghalaya) to make a comprehensive resident database.

The NPR process is being conducted under the Citizenship Act 1955(The Citizenship Amendment Act  2019) while Censes 2021 is as per Census Act 1948.

NPR is the first step towards creation of NRC. This is not only stated in the 2003 Rules. This has also been  admitted by the government in Parliament and the MHA’s Annual Report 2018- 19. The updation of the NPR can therefore be considered to be the first phase of the start of the NRC, a process that precedes a full-blown process of an All India NRC.

The MHA and GOI have faced stiff opposition from both the people and the state governments of non-BJP states, articulated at the recently concluded meeting on the NPR-Census. These objections related to four specific questions included in the NPR-NRC especially the one concerning parents’ places and dates of birth. Pushed into a corner, the Home Ministry was compelled to utter the truth, that  answering questions in the NPR is purely voluntary.

The NPR-NRC link is a reality

When the NPR data is collected, along with the Census Data, it seeks 21 separate categories of information.

As per Clause 4(3) of the 2003 Citizenship Rules, “For the purposes of preparation and inclusion in the Local Register of Indian Citizens, the particulars collected of every family and individual in the Population Register shall be verified and scrutinized by the Local Registrar.”

The population register shall be verified and scrutinized by the local registrar. During the verification process, the particulars of “such individual” as shows Citizenship is doubtful shall entered by the local registrar with an appropriate remark “doubtful Citizen” in the list of the population register for further inquiry!

Every person will be given opportunity of being heard by the sub district or taluka registrar of Citizen Registration. The sub district or taluka registrar shall finalise his finding within 90 days of entry. Others are empowered to “raise objections” to you, your family or anyone else being included in the NPR-NRC list. Thereafter, the data is placed in the public domain for inviting any “objection”. The Order of the  Registrar is final: whether you or any person is included or excluded from the National Population  Register.

Therefore, one thing is clear: the NPR is the first stage of the All India NRC. Or the NPR is a back door  process to launch the All India NRC.

According to the official website of the Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, the demographic particulars to be collected via NPR are listed as follows:

• Name of person

• Relationship to head of household

• Father’s name

• Mother’s name

• Spouse’s name (if married)

• Sex

• Date of Birth

• Marital status

• Place of birth

• Nationality (as declared)

• Present address of usual residence

• Duration of stay at present address

• Permanent residential address

• Occupation/Activity

• Educational qualification

There is a special note in the “nationality” section which reads “Nationality recorded is as declared by the respondent. This does not confer any right to Indian Citizenship”. There is also a special note under the “mother tongue” section, that says, “If you have reasons to suspect that in any area due to any organised movement, the mother tongue is not being truthfully returned, you should record the mother tongue as actually returned by the respondent and make a report to your supervisory officers for verification.”

A detailed document on Census vs. NPR and questions asked during these exercises may be read here.

Related:

CENSUS V/S NPR

Why the CAA+NPR+NRC is a toxic cocktail for everyone

NPR is Step One to NRC, don’t be fooled

Controversial questions removed from NPR?

The post NPR database declared as ‘Critical Information Infrastructure’; needs to be updated soon: MHA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many more voices are rising to protest the flawed investigations and attempts at fanning conspiracy theories about the February 2020 communal riots of North East Delhi. Many are now realising that  Delhi Police has been attempting to criminalise the democratic protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens-National Population Register (CAA-NRC-NPR), and blaming those who participated for instigating the communal riots of North East Delhi.

Scores of activists have been arrested, jailed, and more are regularly called in for questioning on their participation in the anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protests, even in investigations on cases related to the communal riots. However, none of the political leaders whose controversial speeches are a matter of public record, have even been  mentioned in any official investigation. None of the politicians have even been called for questioning, or asked to join any ongoing investigation into the riot cases. 

Activists such as Harsh Mander, Kawalpreet Kaur, Umar Khalid, Prof Apporvanand, etc have continued to raise their voices, even though they have all claimed to face tough questioning by the Delhi Police. They have put in front of the people, facts that lay bare the attempts at creating conspiracy theories, and steering the narrative of the sequence of events in another direction.

The activists have come forth and established the Forum for Constitutional Rights and Democratic Freedoms (FCRDF) in August, 2020, after discussion among its Principal Members, comprising both individuals and organisations, all representing different constituencies. Concerned with the erosion of Constitutional rights and democratic freedoms in the last few years, they have come together on a common platform to stem the tide. 

The groups represented are:

a) several Armed Forces Veterans
b) the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) representing people’s organizations of the poor and disadvantaged
c) the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), made up of former civil servants
d) civil society organisations and concerned citizens
e) the Indian Cultural Forum, deeply involved with cultural issues.

They have issued their first statement of solidarity. This is the full text:

“We write to express our full support, in principle, for the statement ‘We will not be silenced’ made by Harsh Mander on September 4, 2020.  We agree with him that the communal riots in Delhi in February 2020 have not been caused by any conspiracy as alleged by the Delhi Police. On the contrary, they have been caused by the hate speech and provocative statements made by a number of political leaders of the ruling party. 

We stand with Harsh Mander, him, Professor Apoorvanand and their fellow activists. Neither their voices nor ours will be silenced as we speak for truth and freedom.  The ringing words of Harsh Mander’s statement, especially those of the last paragraph, bear repetition and have our endorsement: “We declare here – and hope those holding highest office in the country hear us loud and clear – that the government will never succeed in silencing us, and will never succeed in taking away from us the dream we inherited from our freedom struggle, the dream of together building a country which is just, and equal, and kind.”

It has been signed by eminent citizens such as: Admiral (retd.) L. Ramdas, former Chief of Naval Staff; Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS); Deb Mukharji, IFS (Retd.), former High Commissioner to Bangladesh, CCG;  Dr. Ganesh Devy, civil society organizations and concerned citizens; Githa Hariharan, writer, Indian Cultural Forum.”

The following is the statement made by activist Harsh Mander:

“We will not be silenced

The Delhi Police believes that there was a conspiracy behind the communal violence in Delhi during the third week of February. We agree. But the actual conspiracy was a very different one from the one which Delhi Police is propagating. The truth is that not just the Delhi 2020 carnage; no major episode of communal violence is spontaneous: it is always planned, organised and facilitated.

Such violence requires first the systematic creation of hatred. In Delhi we saw the build-up during the Delhi elections of a climate of hatred spawned by hate speech by senior leaders targeting the protestors against CAA NRC NPR. This was led from the front by the union home minister, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and several other cabinet and BJP party leaders. The outcome was the spread of unprecedented levels of toxic communal venom, unmatched in any previous election in Delhi.

But beyond the manufacture of hatred and the organization of the violence, the critical factor in any riot conspiracy is the role of the state, and particularly the police. No riot can go on for more than a few hours except if the government wishes for it to do so.

There is massive evidence of the complicit partisan role of the police in the Delhi violence. I have spent a lot of time with the victim survivors of the Delhi carnage. I have heard hundreds of testimonies from them about the role of the police enabling, encouraging and actually indulging in hate violence.

The video of policemen tormenting four young men lying on the ground, among who Faizan subsequently died, is telling. The police while beating the men prone on the ground are taunting them by asking them to sing the national anthem; it was clear that they are punishing them for the protests, in which the national anthem had become an iconic symbol of the protests, of resistance, of unity and of solidarity.

This was the conspiracy behind the Delhi communal violence. It was a bid by the Indian state, aided by the Delhi police, to punish and crush the largest non-violent protests that independent India has seen.

The police story is quite the opposite. According to them, it was the anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protests which were the conspiracy, and that the non-violence of the protests was only a facade.

In pursuit of this story, every day the Special Branch of the Delhi Police, which normally investigates grave crimes like terror, is busy for the past months summoning mostly young people, and sometimes seniors, grilling them, intimidating them, and sometimes – as Umar Khalid has testified – forcing them create false evidence.

Large numbers of young people are today languishing in prison for months without bail in the name of this so-called conspiracy.

We are gathered here today above all in the defence and solidarity with all of these young people. Yes, they and we did participate in the non-violent movement against CAA NRC NPR, and we are proud to have done so. During the protests some WhatsApp groups were made. Now every word exchanged in these groups is being examined with a defective microscope by the police, their meaning and context deliberately and mischievously misinterpreted, the truth ripped into shreds and reimagined to create the mythology of a conspiracy of hate, violence and insurrection.

There were significantly other WhatsApp groups that the police themselves admit to, wherein indeed people are actively calling for and organizing the violence on those dates. None of these are being the subject to any investigation of a conspiracy.

Our protests, and those of the young people now in our prisons, were to uphold the Constitution, and the idea of an inclusive and humane country of equal citizenship, which is the proudest legacy of our freedom struggle.

The young people and we protested because we love our country dearly, and we seek to make this country better for all its citizens, of every religion, caste, class and gender, by holding the state accountable to stand by its duties to the constitution. It is a travesty to describe this as a crime against the nation. Those who are seeking to create divisions and hate among us are those who are committing crimes against our country.

The objective of the government is transparent; to destroy the basic guarantees and freedoms of our constitution. The effort of the Indian state, facilitated by the Delhi Police, is to crush our voices, our dissent, and our struggles to uphold our constitution.

We declare here – and hope those holding highest office in the country hear us loud and clear – that the government will never succeed in silencing us, and will never succeed in taking away from us the dream we inherited from our freedom struggle, the dream of together building a country which is just, and equal, and kind .”

Related:

Northeast Delhi violence: Policeman from ‘national anthem’ video questioned
‘Delhi Police Has No Evidence So It’s Resorting to Fabricated Statements’: Umar 
Why do investigations into the Delhi riots appear to be a conspiracy in itself?

The post Citizens speak up against flawed investigation into the February 2020 Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.