The statement caused bewilderment not because the government’s legal position was new, but because it exposed a deeper Indian contradiction: citizenship is foundational yet curiously undocumented. In a constitutional republic of 1.4 billion people, citizenship exists as a legal status but not always as an easily demonstrable document. While India issues citizenship certificates in limited cases such as registration and naturalisation, it has never institutionalised a universal certificate for all citizens, especially those who acquire citizenship by birth. The MEA’s remark did not create this paradox—it merely forced the country to confront it.

At the heart of the confusion lies the persistent conflation of nationality, citizenship, identity, and residency, terms often used interchangeably in public discourse despite their distinct meanings. Citizenship is the legal bond between an individual and the state, determining political rights such as voting and constitutional protections, while nationality, in international law, refers to the state’s recognition of an individual for external purposes like diplomatic protection and travel. Though the two often overlap in many countries, in India the distinction has blurred through administrative practice and conceptual ambiguity. Indian institutions have long treated nationality and citizenship as nearly synonymous, making the state’s sudden insistence on a technical distinction all the more bewildering for ordinary citizens.

The Indian passport itself embodies this ambiguity. It explicitly states “Nationality: Indian,” leading ordinary citizens to reasonably assume that a state-issued passport, granted after rigorous verification, serves as proof of citizenship. Legally, however, the government argues otherwise: under the Passports Act of 1967, a passport is primarily a travel document, and courts have treated it as strong but not conclusive evidence of citizenship. Yet this legal distinction does little to resolve the deeper issue of public trust, which rests not merely on statutory technicalities but on reasonable expectation. An Indian passport is issued only after one of the most rigorous civilian verification processes in the administrative system, involving document scrutiny, identity and address checks, police verification, and database cross-checks. If even a document issued after such extensive sovereign verification cannot provide documentary certainty, citizens are left wondering whether such certainty is possible at all.

The government’s defenders argue that this distinction is standard administrative prudence. Fraudulent passports exist. Errors occur. Illegal entrants have occasionally obtained legitimate-looking documents through forged papers. Therefore, they say, no single document should be considered infallible proof of citizenship. That argument has limited merit. No document is immune from fraud—not birth certificates, not voter IDs, not Aadhaar, not passports. But that observation raises a different question: if every document can theoretically be fraudulent, does that justify treating every citizen as perpetually unverified? Reported NDTV.

This is where the debate ceases to be technical and becomes political.

The anxiety around citizenship in India cannot be separated from a decade of documentation politics. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, the Citizenship Amendment Act protests, detention fears, and repeated rhetoric around “infiltrators” have transformed citizenship from a settled constitutional status into an administrative obstacle course, where documentation functions not merely as a tool of governance but as a test of belonging. The MEA statement came amid the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, when heightened scrutiny of voter eligibility had already reignited fears of exclusion and disenfranchisement. In that context, citizens did not hear a sterile legal clarification; many heard a warning that even the strongest state-issued documents may not protect political belonging. This fear is rooted in lived precedent. In a 2019 NRC in Assam, nearly 1.9 million residents were excluded despite many possessing multiple identity documents, shifting the burden onto individuals to prove belonging through legacy records and multi-generational paper trails. Mechanisms such as Foreigners Tribunals and the “D-voter” classification have further institutionalised citizenship uncertainty, forcing ordinary people into adversarial proceedings to prove they belong. For many, documentation politics remains inseparable from the spectre of detention, where documentary failure can lead to physical confinement.

India’s documentation architecture is fragmented and often exclusionary. Birth certificates remain unavailable for many older and rural Indians; Aadhaar is explicitly not proof of citizenship and can be issued to non-citizen residents; voter IDs, ration cards, driving licences, and PAN each establish limited forms of eligibility or identity, not citizenship. Even passports, despite their prestige, are now reduced to “travel documents,” leaving the average Indian in a peculiar legal limbo—surrounded by identity papers yet lacking a universally accepted proof of citizenship. This contradiction is sharpened by the state’s own inconsistency: while past government deliberations on the Right to Information Act treated Indian passport holders abroad as citizens entitled to citizen-only rights, the state also disclaims passports when legal precision demands it. Such selective elasticity erodes trust; a state cannot demand faith in documentation while reserving the right to deny its meaning.

Modern states depend on documentation because scale makes personal recognition impossible. In a village, identity once rested on community knowledge: everyone knew who belonged. In a nation-state of continental scale, belonging must be mediated through paper, databases, and official recognition. Documents are therefore not merely administrative artifacts; they are instruments through which the state acknowledges personhood and membership. When the meaning of those documents becomes unstable, so does the citizen’s relationship with the state. History shows that documentation systems are never neutral; they can serve welfare and recognition, but also surveillance, sorting, and exclusion.

In the digital state, this problem grows even more complex. Exclusion no longer requires explicit denial; it can emerge silently through database mismatches, transliteration errors, biometric failures, OCR mistakes, and algorithmic flags. Citizenship can become vulnerable not only to missing documents but also to broken data. For migrant workers, rural citizens, linguistic minorities, and the elderly, such invisible failures can become life-altering. The irony is stark in the era of chip-enabled e-passports: even as the state invests in biometrics, cryptographic security, and advanced identity verification, documentary certainty remains elusive.

India’s citizenship regime also suffers from the legacy of Partition. Citizenship law evolved amid displacement, migration, refugee flows, and border anxieties. The Constitution initially addressed citizenship under Articles 5 to 11, while Parliament later enacted the Citizenship Act of 1955. Citizenship could be acquired by birth, descent, registration, or naturalisation. But unlike several other countries, India never institutionalised a universal citizenship certification system. This omission mattered little earlier because citizenship itself was rarely contested at mass scale. Today, however, in an era of biometric databases, surveillance, migration politics, and aggressive verification regimes, that old ambiguity has become dangerous.

Most modern democracies recognise that while no document is fraud-proof, state-issued identity documents must carry strong presumptive legitimacy. In countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, passports are widely accepted as authoritative proof of citizenship or nationality for most practical purposes. India’s problem, therefore, lies less in legal technicality than in its institutional reluctance to provide documentary finality. If the government merely intended to clarify that a passport is not legally conclusive in every dispute, that could have been communicated responsibly; instead, the blunt assertion triggered predictable panic—bureaucratically precise, yet politically reckless. Reported IndiaToday.

This debate goes far beyond semantics because documentation burdens are never distributed equally. The affluent, with digitised records and institutional access, can navigate verification with relative ease, while the poor, displaced, migrant workers, linguistic minorities, the elderly, and marginalised communities remain far more vulnerable. Once citizenship becomes document-dependent, inequality becomes destiny: those with paperwork belong, while those without must plead. This raises a constitutional question—whether citizenship is an inherent right of belonging or a status subject to endless bureaucratic revalidation. In a democracy, the burden must remain on the state to prove exclusion, not on citizens to repeatedly prove inclusion; otherwise, documentation becomes an instrument of coercion rather than a service. The gravest danger is not merely bureaucratic inconvenience but functional statelessness—a condition in which individuals possess histories, documents, and social belonging, yet remain unable to satisfy the state’s shifting documentary demands.

The stakes are not merely symbolic. Citizenship determines access to rights reserved exclusively for citizens, including voting, public office, and constitutional freedoms such as speech, assembly, and movement under Article 19. Uncertainty around citizenship, therefore, threatens not only identity, but the practical enjoyment of democratic rights

The strongest public reaction was not to legal technicality alone, but to what it symbolized: a deep erosion of trust. When institutions repeatedly blur the line between governance and suspicion, even routine clarifications begin to feel threatening.

A passport is undeniably a travel document, but it is also the republic’s assurance of belonging and sovereign protection in moments of crisis. Reducing it to mere travel facilitation strips it of its civic meaning, since passports are issued not to transients but to members of a political community. While citizenship may be challenged in exceptional cases involving fraud or unlawful acquisition, such exceptions cannot define ordinary belonging. The possibility of fraud cannot justify normalising uncertainty for all. The MEA may be legally correct that a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, but legality without civic logic becomes absurdity. If documents issued after sovereign verification carry no presumptive trust, the problem lies not with the document but with the state. That is the unsettling truth this controversy has exposed: citizenship must confer certainty, dignity, and belonging—not permanent doubt.

The author is an Indian author (his first book being The Essential,2023), policy analyst, and columnist. His research and commentary regularly appear in scholarly and popular publications. Follow @ens_socialis.

Related:

Hegemony: Kerala’s Bharatapuzha as a political stage

The post The Battle of Belonging: Why India’s Passport Controversy Matters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As public criticism mounted, the Government maintained that the clarification represented no change in legal position. Rather, officials asserted that passports had never been proof of citizenship. Quoting the statutory scheme of the Passports Act, officials argued that the Act itself contemplates the issuance of passports and travel documents to certain categories of non-citizens and therefore possession of a passport cannot constitute conclusive proof of citizenship. Government officials further justified their position by relying upon a 2013 judgment of the Bombay High Court, asserting that the Court had already held that a passport is not proof of citizenship. As reported by The Times of India, an official stated:

“It was not decided yesterday that the passport is not proof of citizenship. It was not even decided in the last 12 years. The passport has never been a proof of citizenship. Passports Act 1967 says that passports can be given to non-citizens. Judgments of Bombay HC from 2013 have also made it clear a passport is not proof of citizenship.”

The same report explained that the Government’s position rested upon two propositions: first, that the Passports Act allows passports or travel documents to be issued in limited situations to non-citizens; and secondly, that the Bombay High Court had recognised that possession of a passport cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of citizenship. Similar explanations appeared in media coverage by The Hindu, The Indian Express and other national newspapers, many of which reproduced the Government’s reliance on the Bombay High Court decision.

Even at first glance, the official explanation is not persuasive. The Times of India report itself mentions that the passport issued was subsequently terminated, suggesting that this case needs to be looked at in its specificity and is not illustrative. Sabrangindia has accessed the hitherto unavailable, unreported 2013 judgement (see below). A closer examination of both the statutory framework and the Bombay High Court judgment reveals that the legal position is considerably more nuanced. More importantly, it raises the question whether the Government has relied upon the Bombay High Court decision for a proposition that the Court itself never decided.

The statutory scheme of the Passports Act, 1967

The Passports Act, 1967 was enacted “to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.” The title of the Act itself demonstrates that Parliament recognised that travel documentation may occasionally be issued not only to Indian citizens but also to “other persons.”

This distinction is significant. The Act governs travel documentation, whereas citizenship is regulated independently by the Citizenship Act, 1955. The two enactments undoubtedly operate in different legal spheres. A passport is issued under one statute; citizenship is acquired, determined and regulated under another.

However, it does not necessarily follow that because a statute permits the issuance of travel documents to certain categories of non-citizens, every passport issued under the Act loses all evidentiary value regarding citizenship. The Government’s argument conflates two distinct legal propositions.

The first proposition, that citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, is unquestionably correct.

The second proposition, that a passport therefore has no evidentiary significance regarding citizenship, does not automatically follow from the first.

The Passports Act envisages exceptional circumstances in which travel documentation may be issued to non-citizens, such as certificates of identity, emergency certificates and other recognised travel documents issued in accordance with domestic law and international obligations. These exceptional statutory situations cannot be used to erase the ordinary legal presumption that accompanies the issuance of a passport to an Indian citizen after verification by the Passport Authority. The existence of exceptions does not determine the legal character of the general rule.

Indeed, the very process prescribed under the Passports Act and the Passport Rules demonstrates that issuance of a passport ordinarily follows verification of the applicant’s identity, nationality and supporting documents. While this verification may not amount to a judicial determination of citizenship, it would be equally incorrect to suggest that the exercise is legally meaningless or that a valid passport carries no evidentiary weight whatsoever.

The Bombay High Court Judgment: What did the court actually decide?

The Government’s principal judicial authority for its present position is the Bombay High Court’s decision in Anwar Hussain Abdul Kadar Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2013). The judgment, delivered by Justice K.U. Chandiwal in July 2013, has been cited in official explanations as establishing that “a passport is not proof of citizenship.”

A careful reading of the judgment, however, reveals something quite different. The applicants had been convicted under the Foreigners Act and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules. Before the High Court, they sought to rely upon several documents—including passports, Aadhaar cards and a birth certificate—to establish that they were Indian citizens. Their principal submission was that these documents had not been produced before the trial court and therefore the matter ought to be remanded for reconsideration.

The High Court declined to interfere. Crucially, however, the Court did not reject the passport because passports are incapable of evidencing citizenship. Instead, it rejected reliance on the particular passport produced before it because the passport had already been terminated.

The Court expressly observed:

“However, the passport to which the learned Counsel gave reference is already terminated passport. Therefore, no legal basis can be achieved for its reliance.” (Para 3)

This sentence constitutes the heart of the judgment. The Court’s reasoning was document-specific. It was not analysing the evidentiary value of a valid passport. Rather, it held that a passport whose legal validity had already been terminated could no longer furnish a legal basis for establishing citizenship.

The Court thereafter turned to the remaining documentary evidence. It observed that although one applicant had produced a birth certificate, the statutory requirements governing citizenship by birth had not been satisfied because no evidence had been adduced establishing that the applicant’s parents were Indian citizens. Consequently, the applicants had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden necessary to establish citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The judgment therefore rests upon two independent factual conclusions. First, the passport relied upon had already been terminated. Secondly, the applicants had otherwise failed to establish citizenship through admissible documentary evidence.

Neither finding amounts to a declaration that all valid passports are legally incapable of evidencing citizenship.

Why the termination of the passport matters

The fact that the passport had already been terminated is not an incidental factual detail; it is the central reason why the Court declined to rely upon it.

Section 10 of the Passports Act empowers the Passport Authority to vary, impound or revoke a passport in specified circumstances. A passport may be revoked where it has been obtained by fraud, suppression of material information or misrepresentation; where the holder has ceased to be an Indian citizen; where criminal proceedings are pending; where the holder has contravened the provisions of the Act or the conditions subject to which the passport was issued; or where revocation is considered necessary in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or the interests of the general public. Once a passport is revoked or terminated under the statutory framework, it ceases to enjoy the legal validity that attaches to a subsisting passport.

This distinction fundamentally alters the significance of the Bombay High Court’s reasoning. The Court was not confronted with a valid passport issued and continuing under the statutory scheme. It was confronted with a passport whose legal efficacy had already been extinguished. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that “no legal basis” existed for relying upon such a document.

To extend this reasoning to conclude that every valid passport issued by the Government of India is incapable of evidencing citizenship is to read the judgment far beyond its factual and legal context.

Reading the judgment beyond its ratio

It is a settled principle of judicial precedent that a decision is authority only for what it actually decides. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against extracting broad legal propositions from judgments without regard to the factual matrix in which they were rendered.

Measured against this principle, the Government’s reliance on Anwar Hussain appears to stretch the judgment beyond its actual ratio. The High Court never analysed whether a valid passport constitutes prima facie evidence of citizenship. It never considered the evidentiary status of passports issued after statutory verification. Nor did it hold that a valid passport can never be relied upon in citizenship proceedings. Those questions simply did not arise because the passport before the Court had already been terminated.

The judgment therefore establishes a much narrower proposition than the one presently attributed to it. It holds only that a terminated passport, coupled with an independent failure to establish citizenship through other admissible evidence, cannot justify interference with a conviction under the Foreigners Act.

The distinction is not merely semantic. It goes to the very heart of the ongoing debate. The Government’s recent clarification has transformed a fact-specific judicial determination into a sweeping proposition of general application. Such an interpretation risks attributing to the Bombay High Court a legal conclusion that it neither articulated nor was required to decide. If the Government seeks to argue that a valid passport should not be treated as proof of citizenship, that proposition must stand on its own statutory and constitutional foundations. It cannot fairly derive unquestioned authority from a judgment that dealt with an already terminated passport and a complete absence of supporting evidence establishing citizenship.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

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

EXCLUSIVE: Bulk FIRs targets Assamese Indians through Passport Act cases, new assault on Citizenship rights: Assam

HRDA condemns U’khand police’s plan to deny passport for “anti-national” social media posts

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

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

Sleeping under an Open Sky on No-Man’s Land: Two Children, Ten Lives, and the Machinery of Exclusion

The post Not What the Court Decided: Re-reading the Bombay High Court’s passport judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Sleeping Under an Open Sky on No-Man’s Land: Two Children, Ten Lives, and the Machinery of Exclusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Between 1983 and 2012, over 3,03,000 Sri Lankan Tamils entered India in four distinct waves, as documented in the 2023 report After 40 Years, Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India Need Durable Solutions. Today, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Annual Report (2023–24), more than 57,000 remain in refugee camps in Tamil Nadu and Odisha, while nearly 33,000 reside outside camps in Tamil Nadu.

These figures represent not a transient population but a settled community spanning generations. Many arrived as children in the 1980s. Many more were born in India. Among them are nearly 29,500 Indian-origin Tamils — descendants of plantation workers taken to Ceylon under British rule — whose citizenship questions were supposedly addressed under the 1964 Sirimavo-Shastri Pact. Yet decades later, many remain effectively stateless.

The humanitarian emergency of 1983 has become a structural condition of rightlessness.

From solidarity to suspicion

In the early years, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were received with empathy in Tamil Nadu. Shared language, culture, and ethnicity fostered a sense of kinship. Refuge was extended not merely as policy but as solidarity.

That political climate shifted dramatically after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 by LTTE operatives. Public sentiment hardened. Administrative vigilance intensified.

Non-camp refugees were moved into camps. Surveillance mechanisms were strengthened. Identity checks became routine. Refugees report periodic inspections requiring them to be physically present in camps for verification. The implicit message is clear: their presence remains conditional.

Although the Tamil Nadu government provides monthly financial assistance, the support is subsistence-level. Refugees are permitted to work outside camps, yet their formal classification as “foreigners” bars them from property ownership, government employment, political participation, and long-term financial security. Many educated refugees are confined to informal or precarious labour.

The camps are not detention centres — but neither are they spaces of dignity. They are administrative enclosures sustained by indefinite temporariness.

Repatriation as a hollow promise

The end of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009 theoretically opened the door to voluntary repatriation. In practice, it has not functioned as a meaningful solution.

The 2023 refugee report notes that despite the Sri Lankan government forming a committee in 2022 to facilitate returns, only a negligible number of refugees had repatriated by early 2023. UNHCR data similarly reflect extremely low return rates.

The reasons are layered. Economic instability in Sri Lanka persists. Many refugees lost land, documentation, and livelihoods. War trauma remains unresolved. For second-generation refugees born in India, Sri Lanka is not a lived homeland but a distant inheritance.

Media interviews in The Hindu and other national outlets consistently indicate that an overwhelming majority prefer integration in India over repatriation. After forty years, return is no longer a practical aspiration for most. It is a formal option detached from social reality.

Legal Limbo: Protection without belonging

For decades, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were technically classified as “illegal migrants” under India’s foreigner laws because they entered without valid passports or visas. This label carried the theoretical risk of detention or deportation.

The Immigration & Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, issued under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, removed penal liability for registered Sri Lankan Tamils who entered on or before January 9, 2015. This administrative step eliminated criminal exposure and softened the “illegal migrant” stigma.

However, the Order did not recognize them as refugees. It did not confer residency rights. It did not open a pathway to citizenship. They remain legally classified as foreigners — without nationality, without passports, without full civil identity.

The relief is procedural, not transformative.

The CAA and the politics of exclusion

The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) fast-tracked Indian citizenship for persecuted non-Muslim minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Sri Lankan Tamils were excluded from its scope.

This exclusion has drawn sustained criticism. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, argued that the CAA is discriminatory in limiting its protection to three countries and six religions while excluding Tamil refugees who fled ethnic persecution. Reporting by The Hindu has highlighted these constitutional objections.

The Union Government has defended the CAA as a narrowly tailored law addressing specific historical circumstances. Yet the omission of Sri Lankan Tamils raises uncomfortable questions. If the moral justification of the CAA is protection of persecuted minorities, why exclude those who fled one of the longest ethnic conflicts in South Asia?

The selective humanitarianism embedded in the CAA exposes a deeper inconsistency in India’s refugee governance.

Naturalization blocked in practice

In theory, the Citizenship Act, 1955 allows naturalization after eleven years of residence. In practice, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have faced administrative barriers.

A 1986 Ministry of Home Affairs communication reportedly instructed state authorities not to process naturalization applications of Sri Lankan refugees who arrived after July 1983. Though rarely debated publicly, this directive has effectively frozen citizenship claims for decades.

Thus, while the statute appears neutral, policy implementation has been exclusionary. Refugees who have lived in India for thirty or forty years remain without a viable path to citizenship.

Judicial Interventions: Islands of relief

The Madras High Court has periodically disrupted this inertia. In February 2023, Justice G. R. Swaminathan delivered a notable judgment directing the issuance of passports to individuals born in India under Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, which grants citizenship by birth for those born between 1950 and 1987 irrespective of parental nationality.

In other case, in October 2022, the High Court bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan recommended that principles underlying the CAA could logically extend to Sri Lankan Hindu Tamils, describing them as victims of racism.

These interventions offer relief to individual petitioners and expose bureaucratic rigidity. Yet they remain case-specific. They cannot substitute for systemic reform.

Security concerns and collective suspicion

Authorities often cite concerns about residual LTTE ideology among sections of the refugee population. Over the years, some arrests have been made in connection with alleged smuggling or revivalist activity.

Security considerations are legitimate. However, collective exclusion based on historic militancy is disproportionate. Democratic governance requires distinguishing between individual criminal conduct and community identity.

Other countries with large Sri Lankan Tamil diasporas — including Canada and the United Kingdom — have managed security screening while still granting citizenship. Security vetting and integration are not mutually exclusive.

To indefinitely withhold rights from an entire refugee population due to past insurgency risks converting precaution into discrimination.

The stateless generation

Perhaps the most compelling dimension of this crisis is generational. Thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils in Tamil Nadu were born in India. They studied in Indian schools, speak with local accents, and participate in local economies.

Yet they cannot vote. They cannot hold secure title to property. They cannot access the full range of civil and political rights guaranteed to citizens.

They are not transient outsiders. They are socially embedded but legally excluded. Their condition is neither classic refugeehood nor voluntary migration. It is structural statelessness.

Matua identity cards, CAA camps and the politics of assurance in Bengal

In Thakurnagar in North 24 Parganas — the spiritual headquarters of the Matua community — the year of 2025 witnessed scenes that resemble a political mobilisation drive as much as a religious gathering. Loudspeakers make repeated announcements, volunteers sit behind rows of wooden desks scrutinising Aadhaar cards and voter IDs, and long queues of men and women wait under plastic sheets clutching old refugee papers. What is being distributed is not merely a card, but a promise — or at least the suggestion — of protection.

Ground reports, including detailed coverage by The Wire, describe how camps run by factions of the All India Matua Mahasangha are issuing “Matua eligibility cards” and “Hindu identity cards.” Applicants pay ₹50 or ₹100, submit photographs and identification documents, and are told that possession of these cards will make it easier to apply under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The camps are associated with leaders aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including Union Minister of State for Ports, Shipping and Waterways Shantanu Thakur and his brother Subrata Thakur — descendants of the Matua founding family tracing back to reformer Harichand Thakur. As reported by The Wire, differently coloured cards (pink and yellow) are being issued by rival factions, each presented as proof of Matua and Hindu identity.

Legally, these cards are not citizenship documents. They do not confer nationality, voting rights, or statutory recognition under the Citizenship Act. Yet thousands are lining up to obtain them.

Electoral anxiety and the promise of protection

The surge in applications is unfolding against the backdrop of the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The revision exercise has triggered widespread anxiety among refugee-origin communities who lack older documentation or whose names were missing in previous electoral revisions.

In this climate of uncertainty, the BJP has framed the CAA as a shield. In December 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, speaking in Kolkata, publicly assured the Matua community that individuals who have applied for citizenship under the CAA would retain their voting rights and need not fear disenfranchisement. Media reports quoted him as reiterating that refugees from religious persecution would be protected and treated as citizens.

These assurances carry considerable political weight. The Matuas — largely Namasudra Hindus who migrated from East Pakistan and Bangladesh — constitute one of Bengal’s most influential Scheduled Caste communities. Concentrated in districts such as Nadia and North 24 Parganas, they play a decisive role in dozens of assembly constituencies. The BJP’s gains in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in Matua-dominated belts were widely attributed to its citizenship plank. However, subsequent state and panchayat elections indicated shifting loyalties, making continued consolidation electorally significant as fresh polls approach.

The visible intensity of the certificate drives — the public messaging, digitisation desks, and symbolic use of religious space — suggests that citizenship outreach is not occurring in a vacuum. It is unfolding in synchrony with electoral timing.

Symbolism, documentation and political strategy

For many Matua families, citizenship documentation has remained incomplete for decades. Some possess Aadhaar cards but lack legacy electoral roll entries. Others lost birth certificates long ago. The New Indian Express report highlighted cases such as that of Laturam Sikdar and Padma Sikdar in Nadia district, who reportedly received citizenship certificates after applying under the CAA framework following anxiety triggered by electoral roll revision announcements.

Such cases are cited by BJP leaders as proof that the CAA delivers security. At the same time, leaders of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have questioned the legality of issuing religious certificates through private camps. As reported by The Wire, TMC MP Mamata Bala Thakur has argued that the Citizenship Act does not require any religious certificate issued by a socio-religious body and accused the BJP of collecting documents from vulnerable communities under misleading assurances.

The fees collected, the absence of statutory backing for the cards, and the overlap between religious identity and electoral messaging have intensified scrutiny. Yet for many in the queues, legal nuance is secondary. In an environment where documentation determines belonging, even unofficial paper can feel like insurance.

Selective urgency and the Sri Lankan Tamil contrast

The developments in Thakurnagar acquire deeper significance when viewed alongside another long-standing refugee question in India — that of Sri Lankan Tamils in Tamil Nadu.

For over four decades, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees — many of whom fled ethnic persecution during the civil war involving the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam — have lived in camps in Tamil Nadu. As discussed earlier, over 57,000 remain in camps and tens of thousands more reside outside camps. Despite decades of residence, generations born in India, and repeated appeals by Tamil Nadu’s political leadership, they remain without a clear pathway to citizenship.

Notably, the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act excluded Sri Lankan Tamils from its fast-track naturalisation framework, even while extending protection to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The contrast is stark: while Matua Hindus from Bangladesh are being publicly assured that citizenship applications will safeguard their voting rights, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees — who have lived in India for up to forty years — continue to exist in legal limbo.

In West Bengal, citizenship drives are visible, vocal, and politically foregrounded as elections approach. In Tamil Nadu, long-settled refugee communities await structural reform without comparable urgency from the Union government.

This divergence raises uncomfortable questions about selective prioritisation. When citizenship becomes electorally salient, administrative energy appears to intensify. When communities lack equivalent electoral leverage at the national level, reform stagnates.

Citizenship as electoral currency

The Matua certificate camps in Thakurnagar reveal how citizenship, documentation, religion, and electoral politics intersect in contemporary India. For the community, the card represents reassurance against bureaucratic erasure. For the ruling party at the Centre, it consolidates a key voter base before polls. For opposition parties, it exemplifies the politicisation of identity and documentation.

But when placed alongside the unresolved plight of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in Tamil Nadu, the contrast exposes a broader pattern: citizenship policy is not merely a humanitarian instrument — it is also an electoral strategy.

In one state, camps distribute identity cards amid public assurances of voting rights.
In another, refugees of forty years remain without statutory belonging.

Between these two realities lies a central question: Is India’s citizenship policy guided by uniform principles of protection and integration — or by political calculus shaped by the electoral map?

As state elections draw closer in Bengal, the queues in Thakurnagar are not just about paperwork. They are about power, protection, and the politics of belonging — a politics that appears far more urgent in some regions than in others.

A question of constitutional integrity

After forty years, the issue is no longer about temporary asylum. It is about justice, equality, and constitutional coherence.

The Immigration & Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 removed criminal liability but not exclusion. The CAA fast-tracks citizenship — selectively. Naturalization exists in theory but is obstructed in practice. Political resolutions by Tamil Nadu’s government, led by M. K. Stalin, remain subject to Union discretion.

Protection without integration becomes containment. Containment without timeline becomes neglect.

Sri Lankan Tamils in India are no longer merely refugees seeking safety. They are a community woven into the social fabric of Tamil Nadu, awaiting formal recognition of what has long been a lived reality.

Forty years is not temporary protection. It is a generation denied belonging.

Related:

MHA says data on CAA citizenship applicants not maintained, cites lack of record -keeping provisions to RTI

First set of citizenship certificates issued to over 300 under CAA: MHA

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism

CAA discriminatory against Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka: DMK

The post From Permanent Refuge to Perpetual Limbo: Why Sri Lankan Tamil refugees remain without citizenship even as electoral assurances reshape belonging in Bengal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing the Union’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order directing the repatriation of six persons who were pushed across the border in June 2025. Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Sanjay Hegde argued that the Union had delayed compliance and initiated its challenge only when the families moved for contempt.

During the hearing, Hegde pointed out that the Union had allowed the High Court order to “lie in defect” for nearly a month. “These are Indian citizens who have been thrown across,” he submitted, according to a report of LiveLaw.

“What prevents you?” — CJI questions Union’s resistance

After examining the record, the CJI noted that substantial documentary material had emerged: birth certificates, land records, Aadhaar and PAN details of the deportees or their family members. These, he said, constituted “evidence of probability” that warranted a proper enquiry — something the authorities had “hardly” undertaken before deportation.

According to the LiveLaw report, the CJI observed: “If somebody has something to show you — that wait, I belong to India, I am born and brought up here — he has a right to plead before you. Earlier you hardly held any enquiry. The allegation is that the deportee was never heard.”

He then posed the central question to the Union: “So what prevents you? Why don’t you, at least as a temporary measure, bring them back, give them an opportunity of hearing, verify all these documents and take a holistic view?”

The Court directed the Union to obtain instructions by Monday, indicating that the government may consider facilitating their return while the enquiry is reopened.

Background of the case

The High Court order the Union has not complied with: This Supreme Court hearing stems from the Calcutta High Court’s September 26, 2025 judgment in Bhudu Sheikh v. Union of India, which quashed the deportation of six persons, including:

• Eight-month pregnant Sunali (Sonali) Khatun,
• Her husband Danish Sheikh,
• Their eight-year-old son Sabir,
• Sweety Bibi, and
• Her two minor sons.

The individuals had been picked up in Delhi during an “identity verification drive” and deported within 48 hours, allegedly without inquiry or notice to the West Bengal authorities. The petitioner — Sunali’s father, Bhudu Sheikh, a resident of Birbhum — maintained that all six were Indian citizens.

HC finds “hot haste,” disregard of MHA rules: The Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that:

• The deportation violated the MHA memo dated May 2, 2025, which requires a 30-day verification through the home State.
• Statements allegedly made by the detainees admitting they were Bangladeshis were inadmissible, since statements to police “without procedural safeguards” carry no presumption of voluntariness.
• Aadhaar and PAN records established that Sunali was born in 2000, making it impossible for her to have “entered India illegally in 1998,” as claimed.

Observing that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof,” the Court declared the deportation unconstitutional and held that the executive’s conduct had “crippled the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness.”

HC ordered repatriation in 4 weeks: The High Court directed the Union, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the six individuals within four weeks, via the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. It refused to stay its own order, noting that:

“Liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.”

The four-week deadline expired on October 24, 2025, without compliance. Instead, the Centre filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court on October 22 — two days before the deadline.

Bangladesh Court also found them to be Indian citizens: In a development with diplomatic implications, the Senior Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Chapainawabganj (Bangladesh) on September 30, 2025, also held that all six deportees were Indian citizens.

The Magistrate cited:

• Their Aadhaar details,
• Proof of residence in Birbhum,
• And the absence of evidence that they were Bangladeshi nationals.

The Court concluded that they had been “wrongfully pushed across the border,” directing that its order be transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for appropriate action.

This created an extraordinary situation: both Indian and Bangladeshi courts had recognised the deportees’ Indian citizenship, while the Union government declined to bring them back.

Union’s defence of jurisdiction, suppression, and “confessional” statements: Before the Supreme Court, the Union contended that:

• The Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction as similar matters were pending before the Delhi High Court.
• The petitioner had allegedly suppressed this fact.
• The detainees had confessed to being Bangladeshi nationals during interrogation.

However, the High Court had already rejected these assertions, holding that:

• Jurisdiction for a habeas petition lies where the petitioner resides or where the effect of the detention is felt.
• Statements to police cannot form the basis of deportation under Articles 14, 20(3), and 21.

Detailed report on this may be read here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post ‘They Have a Right to Be Heard’: Supreme Court suggests Union brings back alleged deportees from Bangladesh “at least as a temporary measure” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The first and most pressing is the case of 26-year-old Sunali Khatun from Birbhum’s Murarai area, pregnant at the time of her arrest, who was detained in Delhi in June along with her husband and 8-year-old son and subsequently deported to Bangladesh. She is currently jailed in Bangladesh, legally battling for her return to India.

The Sunali Khatun case

Sunali and her husband, Danish Sheikh, along with their son, were apprehended in Delhi’s K.N. Katju Marg in June, labeled as illegal immigrants. Their deportation was ordered by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and executed despite Sunali’s family presenting Aadhaar and PAN documents, as per a report in the Times of India.

What has triggered shock and outrage is the revelation that Sunali’s parents — Bhodu Sheikh and Jyotsna Bibi — are listed as voters in Bengal’s 2002 SIR-era electoral roll, under Murarai assembly constituency.  Under the Citizenship Act, one route to being a citizen by birth is if one parent was an Indian citizen at the time of the person’s birth. In this case, both parents appear on a list of voters deemed legitimate by the Election Commission of India (EC).

The Calcutta High Court (HC) in September quashed the FRRO deportation order, noting the haste of the process and the mismatch in Sunali’s age (26 yrs, implying birth in 2000) and the claim of illegal entry in 1998. The court directed the Centre to repatriate her and her family within four weeks — a deadline that has lapsed, The Indian Express reported.

Her father told The Indian Express that “Now our names are on the list. What more do I need to have my pregnant daughter and her family back home?”

The ruling party in Bengal, the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), has seized on these facts to accuse the opposition and the Centre of weaponising the SIR process and targeting poor Bengali-speaking migrants. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the TMC declared:

“To brand an expectant mother as an illegal infiltrator when her parents stand documented as Indian citizens in the 2002 electoral rolls, is not administrative oversight; it is a moral collapse orchestrated in the name of nationalism” as per a report in the Shillong Times.

Meanwhile, the Centre has moved the matter to the Supreme Court, resisting immediate compliance with the HC’s order.

A suicide amid SIR fears

In a parallel but separate another incident, Kakoli Sarkar, a 32-year-old homemaker originally from Dhaka, married and living in Titagarh for 15 years, ended her life by self-immolation. According to her mother-in-law, Kakoli had valid Indian documents, had voted in multiple elections, yet she lived with anxiety that her name was not on the 2002 voters’ list and that the SIR/NRC process might render her a suspect.

According to reports, on the night of her death she left a note stating that “No one is responsible for my death … I don’t feel well here … Please take care of my two daughters…”

Local police have detained her husband Sabuj Sarkar and her in-laws for questioning to determine if family pressure and documentation fears contributed to the tragedy, as reported

Impact and broader anxieties

These two cases are emblematic of a heightened climate of uncertainty across Bengal, where the SIR rollout and the spectre of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) continue to loom large. The EC’s announcement of SIR-drives across multiple states and Union Territories, including West Bengal, has reignited fears of exclusion, statelessness, and the sense that one’s right to remain is provisional, reported Sabrang India.

For Sunali’s family, the fact that her parents are on the 2002 roll should — in principle — secure her legitimacy. Yet she remains in a Bangladeshi prison and the deadlines set by the court remain unmet. For Kakoli, despite voting and living in India for years, the absence of a listing on the 2002 roll and the ongoing SIR process appears to have triggered existential dread.

Kakoli Sarkar’s suicide is not the only one

The fear that drove Kakoli Sarkar, to end her life amid growing panic over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is not an isolated tragedy. Her death joins a disturbing pattern of despair spreading across Bengal — where citizenship and belonging have become matters of fear rather than procedure.

Haunted by NRC and citizenship fears

The recent death of 57-year-old Pradip Kar from Agarpara, North 24 Parganas, once again exposes the deepening distress among Bengal’s citizens over ongoing citizenship verification exercises. On October 28, 2025, Kar was found hanging in his home, leaving behind a suicide note that “NRC is responsible for my death.”

According to SabrangIndia’s report, his family said he had grown increasingly anxious after the Election Commission announced the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across 12 states, including West Bengal — a move widely feared to be a prelude to an NRC-like process.

According to Barrackpore Police Commissioner Murlidhar Sharma, there were no signs of foul play, but Kar’s note made an explicit reference to the NRC. “The family told us he was deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports. After the SIR announcement, he appeared anxious but they assumed it was illness,” Sharma said. Kar’s sister recalled, “He used to tell us he would be taken away in the name of NRC.”

Kar’s death mirrors the earlier tragedy of 31-year-old Debashish Sengupta from Kolkata, who died by suicide in March 2024 after being gripped by fears linked to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As reported by Sabrang India, Sengupta—visiting his grandparents in South 24 Parganas—was found hanging after confiding that his ailing father, a migrant from Bangladesh, could be denied citizenship for lack of documents. His family said he was “consumed by dread” that the new CAA rules would render many stateless.

These deaths are no longer isolated incidents but reflections of emerging fears consuming ordinary citizens where bureaucratic exercises meant to verify identity instead provoke panic about erasure. Across Bengal, whispers of “NRC coming through the backdoor” now carry the weight of lived fear, not mere speculation.

Related:

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC

The post Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, announcing the decision, said the measure would empower civil administration and “to a large extent nullify the role of Foreigners’ Tribunals”.

What the SOP provides

1. Notice and proof – On receiving information from the police or border authorities, the DC issues notice to a suspect, granting 10 days to produce documents proving citizenship.
2. DC’s decision – If documents are unsatisfactory, the DC issues a written order of expulsion under Section 2(a) of the 1950 Act. The person must leave within 24 hours, using a route specified by the DC.
3. Declared foreigners – Where the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) has already declared a person a foreigner, the DC will directly issue an expulsion order, bypassing further scrutiny.
4. Police role – Before expulsion, the SSP records biometric and demographic details on the Foreigners Identification Portal.
5. Detention and “pushback” – If a person refuses to leave, they may be placed in a holding centre or handed to the BSF. Individuals detected near the zero line or within 12 hours of entry will be pushed back immediately.

What did CM Sarma say during the Press Meet?

On September 9, 2025, the Assam Cabinet approved the framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for implementing the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950.

Addressing a late-night press conference, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma explained that under the new SOP:

• If a District Commissioner (DC) receives information from the police or any other source that a person is suspected to be an illegal immigrant, the DC will issue a notice directing the person to produce proof of Indian citizenship within 10 days.
• After hearing the individual, if the DC arrives at the conclusion that the person is a foreigner, an immediate order of expulsion (“push-back”) will be issued.
• If the DC cannot reach a firm conclusion, the case will be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) for adjudication.

Sarma emphasised that the cut-off date remains March 25, 1971, in line with the Assam Accord. Thus, anyone alleged to have entered Assam after 1971 may be brought before the DC under the new procedure. Pending cases before Foreigners Tribunals will continue, but new cases not already before an FT can now be initiated directly before the DC.

The Chief Minister described this as a “landmark decision,” arguing that while the Act of 1950 had never been actively enforced in this manner, the Supreme Court had “clearly indicated” that Assam is free to use it for detection and deportation of foreigners. He claimed the SOP would allow the government to act in the “letter and spirit” of the law, making it easier for the State to expel those determined to be foreigners.

Link of press meet:

(12.25 minutes to 16.35 minutes)

Earlier, on August 21, 2025, the Assam Cabinet also resolved that the State would stop issuing Aadhaar cards to adults, further tightening its documentation regime.

Historical and legal backdrop

The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was passed by the Union government in response to post-Partition migration from East Pakistan. It empowered the government to order the removal of any non-Indian whose stay was deemed “detrimental to the public interest” or to the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Assam.

But within a month, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed Assam’s Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi to suspend its use following the Liaquat–Nehru Pact (April 1950), which sought to protect minorities on both sides of the border. The Act then fell into disuse. However, the 1950 Act and its use has surfaced only recently, for the same is being used to detain and “push-out” people.

SOP leaves fundamental questions unanswered

Mrinmoy Dutta, Advocate (Gauhati High Court) and counsel for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), said that the new SOP marks a clear attempt to shift the entire process of citizenship determination from the quasi-judicial Foreigners’ Tribunals to the executive authority of the Deputy Commissioner (DC).

He explained that India’s Citizenship Act does not clearly specify what documents are required to prove citizenship, particularly for those born in India. “There is no definitive legal framework that says what proof of citizenship by birth should look like. This makes the SOP deeply uncertain in its operation,” he noted.

Dutta stressed that there is no debate over the principle that foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971 must be excluded in line with the Assam Accord. “The real question is: who is a foreigner, and how will they be identified? Earlier, this role was entrusted to Foreigners’ Tribunals, but now the SOP transfers that function to the DC, without clear legal safeguards.”

He further pointed out that the SOP does not clarify how it interacts with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Under NRC rules, persons excluded from the final NRC list were supposed to receive rejection slips, enabling them to appeal. “Those rejection slips have not yet been issued. Now, if a DC serves a notice, it is unclear whether this process will be linked to the NRC or entirely independent of it. Can the SOP override NRC appeal provisions or bypass the Foreigners’ Tribunal framework? These are fundamental unanswered questions,” he said.

Another major concern, Dutta observed, is the absence of an appeal mechanism. “If someone receives a notice late or cannot produce documents within ten days, there is no statutory appeal provision in the SOP. The only remedy left is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. This places a heavy burden on individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized.”

He concluded that judicial scrutiny and oversight are indispensable, because in its current form the SOP risks arbitrary expulsions without clear rules, adequate time, or meaningful remedies.

Critical concerns

1. Bypassing judicial Tribunals

Traditionally, questions of citizenship and foreigner status in Assam are adjudicated by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FTs), quasi-judicial bodies created under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The new SOP places this power in the hands of executive officers (DCs), raising concerns of bias, lack of due process, and arbitrary decision-making.

While Sarma insists that only “confusing cases” will go to FTs, this reverses the default mechanism: from judicial determination to administrative fiat. Many argue this risks turning citizenship adjudication into a purely bureaucratic exercise.

2. Violation of natural justice

The SOP grants only 10 days for a suspected person to prove citizenship. Given the well-documented difficulties in Assam — poor documentation, illiteracy, displacement due to floods, and language barriers — this period may be unrealistically short. Legal scholars caution that it fails to meet the constitutional requirements of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

3. Separation of powers and Constitutional mandate

By allowing DCs to override FTs, the SOP arguably undermines the statutory role of Foreigners’ Tribunals, established precisely to ensure that complex citizenship questions are not left to executive discretion. The principle of separation of powers — where determination of rights is reserved for judicial or quasi-judicial bodies — is at stake.

4. Risk of arbitrary expulsions and statelessness

The SOP also permits immediate pushbacks at the border within 12 hours, without any process. This could lead to collective expulsions in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement under customary international law.

Constitutional and legal questions

1. Does the SOP violate Article 21? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)) that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable. Ten days to prove citizenship may not satisfy this threshold.
2. Can executive SOP override statutory mechanisms? The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 explicitly entrust FTs with the task of determining citizenship disputes. An executive SOP cannot, in law, displace this statutory framework unless backed by Parliament.
3. Equal Protection (Article 14): Selective targeting of Bengali-speaking Muslims, as human rights groups fear, may amount to hostile discrimination. Even if the SOP is facially neutral, its implementation could violate the Article 14 guarantee against arbitrariness.
4. Judicial Review: The SOP is likely to face constitutional challenge. Courts will have to weigh whether the 1950 Act, designed as an emergency measure, can be resurrected in a way that dilutes procedural safeguards crafted over decades.

Government justification

It has been argued by the state that the move is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2024 directions to employ the 1950 Act alongside Section 6A. According to the report of NDTV, with over 82,000 cases pending before FTs, the government says speedier administrative action is necessary to curb illegal immigration.

Sarma has also claimed that Assam has already “pushed back” more than 30,000 illegal immigrants, and the SOP simply codifies what has been practice on the ground, as reported by Assam Tribune.

Conclusion

The Assam government’s SOP under the 1950 Act is more than a bureaucratic measure — it marks a radical shift in how India addresses contested citizenship. By moving decision-making from quasi-judicial bodies to executive officers, it raises deep constitutional concerns about due process, separation of powers, and fundamental rights.

The legal test ahead will be whether courts uphold this framework as a legitimate application of the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment, or strike it down as executive overreach incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and justice.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post From Tribunals to DCs, 10 Days to Prove Citizenship: Assam’s radical shift in “foreigner” expulsions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sukumar Baishya, outside his home, holding up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

A journey marked by displacement and persecution

Born in 1963 in Patkata No. 1, Sukumar is the son of Lt. Sahadeb Baishya, who migrated from Binnati, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam in 1952–53 due to religious persecution. His father obtained a Certificate of Registration as a Citizen of India on December 24, 1956.

Sukumar’s life story is deeply intertwined with Assam’s turbulent political history. Sukumar’s life was further scarred during the 1983 Assam Movement, when his house was burnt down and all his possessions destroyed. Despite his indisputable roots in India, he found himself accused of being a foreigner who had entered Assam after March 25, 1971.

The case and the State’s allegations

The case against Sukumar arose from a reference under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order, 1964. He was alleged to be a “foreigner from a specified territory” who entered Assam post-1971.

Sukumar contested this vigorously, asserting that:

• He is Indian by birth, with a father who was a registered Indian citizen since 1956.
• The Investigating Officer (IO) never visited his home, never examined him or his witnesses, and filed a false, baseless, and unverified inquiry report.
• The case was registered in 2004 but he received notice only in February 2021 — a delay of 17 years, which he argued should render the case barred by limitation.

 
CJP Team Assam with Sukumar Baishya outside his home

Documentary evidence submitted

With CJP’s legal support, Sukumar placed on record ten key documents establishing both his own Indian citizenship and his linkage to his father, including:

1. Certificate of Registration (24/12/1956) for his father, issued under Section 5(1)(a)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Voter List of 1966 – Father’s name recorded under 41 No. Bijni L.A.C.
3. Voter List of 1971 – Father’s name recorded again before the 1971 cut-off.
4. Original Sale Deed (02/07/1956) in his father’s name.
5. Jamabandi Records showing land mutation in 1988 in the names of Sukumar and his brothers after their father’s death.
6. Voter List of 1997 – Sukumar and his wife Renu Bala Baishya recorded at the same address.
7. Voter List of 2005 – Sukumar and both wives (Renu Bala and Anjali Bala) recorded.
8. Ration Card with Sukumar’s and his father’s names.
9. Link Certificate from the President of Palengbari Gaon Panchayat.
10. Additional Jamabandi Records linking the family to the land since the 1950s.

Tribunal’s legal reasoning and findings

The Tribunal framed two key issues:

1. Whether Sahadeb Baishya was a citizen of India.
2. Whether Sukumar Baishya was his son.

On paternity (Issue 2):

• Jamabandi records, the 1997 voter list, and testimony from Sukumar’s younger brother Manindra Baishya and the Land Records Assistant (Manikpur Revenue Circle) proved beyond doubt that Sukumar was the son of Sahadeb Baishya.
• The Ration Card was not accepted as it was not formally proved, but other documentary and oral evidence were sufficient.

On father’s citizenship (Issue 1):

• The Certificate of Registration (1956) and pre-1971 voter lists established Sahadeb as a registered Indian citizen residing in Assam since at least 1956.
• The 1956 sale deed and continuous land records corroborated long-standing residence and ownership.

Final determination: The Tribunal held that Sukumar had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, proving he was not a foreigner but an Indian citizen by birth. He was absolved of all allegations.

Human impact and community reaction

When the CJP legal team — Dewan Abdur Rahim (Legal Team Member), Nanda Ghosh (State In-Charge), Sudrasan Das (Community Volunteer), Tapash Chakraborty, and Asikul Hussain (Driver) — visited Sukumar to hand over the judgment copy, he broke down in emotion, thanking CJP for restoring his dignity and security.

Neighbour Dulal Baishya, 80, who has witnessed the horrors of the Assam Movement and decades of communal tensions, expressed gratitude for CJP’s intervention. He also voiced his fears: “I’ve witnessed the Assam movement and its horrors, and I’ve seen communal clashes in Assam over the years. Despite all this, I’ve never considered leaving. Recently, one of my relatives moved to North Bengal. But with the government’s citizenship, eviction, and land rules, I’m worried about my own future. As a common person, I’m scared about how I’ll be able to live in this state.”

A wider pattern of injustice

Sukumar’s case is not isolated. Even 78 years after independence, Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims in Assam, especially those from poor and marginalised backgrounds, are still being compelled to prove their citizenship, often decades after their families settled in India.

This case underscores the urgent need for:

• Transparent and fair citizenship determination processes.
• Protection from arbitrary investigations and false reports.
• Recognition that bureaucratic processes should not become tools of exclusion against vulnerable communities.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Liberty under Siege: Reclaiming the right to speedy trial from the grip of special laws

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post After years of delay, justice at last for Sukumar Baishya as Foreigners’ Tribunal declares him an Indian citizen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A vacation bench of Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order in a writ petition filed by Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking a writ of habeas corpus and protection against deportation or coercive state action in violation of due process. While the two younger children were handed over to their mother shortly after the petition was filed, the eldest daughter remained in custody at the Nirbhaya Cell of the Mankhurd Police Station, triggering judicial intervention. The High Court’s order not only underscores the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 but also reinforces that inquiries under the Foreigners Act, 1946 must be conducted with procedural fairness and sensitivity—particularly when the individuals in question are children or young adults born on Indian soil.

The petition had also sought to restrain the respondents—the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the Senior Inspector of Police, Mankhurd Police Station, and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office—from detaining or deporting them without adhering to lawful procedure.

Family Background and Detention

The petitioners are the biological children of one Dadamiya Bardhyar Khan and Mariyam Khan. The mother, Mariyam, is an Indian citizen by birth, while the father, Dadamiya, had lived in India, worked as a cab driver, and was married to Mariyam. The petitioners contended that they were all born in India, held valid Indian birth certificates, and that both their parents had official Indian documents including ration cards and voter IDs.

Despite this, following a special police drive in May 2025 targeting suspected illegal foreign nationals, the Mankhurd police detained all three children and their father. While the two younger children were later released to their mother’s custody following the filing of the habeas corpus petition, Ruksar continued to be held at the Nirbhaya Cell of the Mankhurd Police Station pending an inquiry.

State’s Position: Inquiry under Foreigners Act

The respondents, represented by Advocate Manisha Jagtap (for the Union) and Additional Public Prosecutor Mahalakshmi Ganapathy (for the State), argued that the detention was lawful and necessitated by an ongoing investigation under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Central Government Resolution dated May 2, 2025. The state placed on record a statement made by Dadamiya Khan during the inquiry, in which he allegedly admitted to being a Bangladeshi national who had entered India illegally via the Banafol border due to lack of employment in Bangladesh.

The Union and State further submitted that although the two minors had been released, Ruksar’s continued detention was required to establish her identity and citizenship as part of the broader inquiry.

Petitioners’ Stand: Indian by birth, documents ignored

Petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Siddha Pamecha, assisted by Advocate Raj Pani, vigorously opposed the detention, placing on record:

• Birth certificates of all three children, issued in India;
• Identity documents of Mariyam Khan, including her voter ID issued by the Election Commission of India;
• PAN card, ration card, and an alleged Indian passport held by Dadamiya Khan;
• Proof of residence in Mumbai.

They contended that Ruksar, having turned 18 only recently, was being unfairly targeted for her father’s alleged illegal status and that her detention violated constitutional guarantees under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and applicable statutory protections under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and related jurisprudence.

Court’s findings and ruling

After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that:

“Considering the ages of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and also the age of Petitioner No.1 which is only 18 years, we do not find it necessary for the Petitioners to be detained in custody for the purpose of the inquiry, which is to be conducted.” (Para 9)

Accordingly, the court issued the following key directions:

1. Immediate release: Petitioner No. 1, Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, shall be released forthwith from the custody of the Mankhurd police.
2. No further custody without leave of court: Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were already released to their mother’s custody, “shall not be taken into custody again without prior permission of this Court.” (Para 10)
3. Jurisdictional restraint: All three petitioners are barred from leaving the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court without express permission, and are to make themselves available to the police for the purpose of inquiry when summoned.
4. Communication obligations: Ruksar and her mother, Mariyam Khan, are directed to furnish their residential address, mobile numbers, and any other contact details to the investigating officer.
5. Inquiry into passport issuance: A one-page copy of Dadamiya Khan’s alleged Indian passport was also on record. The APP submitted that the passport might have been issued on the basis of forged documents. The court noted this submission and permitted the state to initiate an appropriate inquiry against the Regional Passport Office and any officials found negligent or complicit.

Broader legal and human rights concerns

Key legal issues highlighted in the above case are:

• Unlawful detention under Article 21 and the doctrine of proportionality.
• Procedural safeguards under the Foreigners Act and the requirement for quasi-judicial determination before deportation.
• Protection of minor children born in India under domestic and international legal standards.
• Importance of distinguishing individual citizenship from parental immigration history

This case has brought renewed attention to the use of the Foreigners Act, 1946, especially in cases involving minors and individuals born in India. There have been long standing warnings against the Act, which allows for executive inquiries into citizenship without judicial safeguards, must be read alongside Article 21, the right against arbitrary detention, and international child rights standards, especially where minors or mixed-nationality families are involved.

While the Bombay High Court order has brought relief to the Khan children, particularly Ruksar, the legal uncertainty surrounding their father’s nationality and the inquiry into their own citizenship status continues. The court has struck a balance between the state’s right to investigate and the individual’s right to liberty, due process, and dignity. The said ruling affirms a fundamental principle: the power of the state to question citizenship must be exercised lawfully, carefully, and without sacrificing the liberties of those—especially minors—who may well be Indian citizens by birth.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

Gauhati High Court directs Assam Government to disclose whereabouts of two men secretly detained by the police in May

CJP Exclusive from Assam: Six Indian women, six torturous nights, and the ordeal of being dubbed “Bangladeshi” by the State

“Disappeared in the night”: CJP’s memorandum to NHRC on Assam’s secretive detentions and illegal pushbacks

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post Bombay High Court orders immediate release of 18-year-old detained for father’s citizenship status appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With this declaration, Matleb has cleared his name of the “foreigner” tag — a stigma that haunted him for decades despite overwhelming documentary evidence of his Indian lineage. Matleb’s struggle came to an end when the Foreigners Tribunal in Assam formally declared him an Indian on May 17, 2025 — a moment made possible by the unwavering support of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

Matleb Ali stands outside his home holding the order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (Dhubri)

This is more than just a legal victory — it’s a testament to resilience, community solidarity, and the courage to stand up against a system that too often fails the most vulnerable.

The Origin of the Case: A 1998 reference

Matleb Ali, also recorded in official documents as Matleb Ali or Motleb Ali, was born in 1981 in the remote village of Ramraikuti Part I in Assam’s Dhubri district, about 251 kilometres from Guwahati. The village, perched on India’s border with Bangladesh, has long been home to his family — generation after generation.

He completed his matriculation from Agomani Higher Secondary School, an institution established shortly after India’s independence. His father, Kasem Ali, was a lifelong resident of Ramraikuti, owning land there as early as 1962. His grandparents, Sonaullah Sk and Kosimon Bewa, were registered voters in the 1966 electoral rolls — clear, continuous proof of Indian lineage.

Yet in 1998, the unthinkable happened: a reference was made against Matleb, branding him a suspected foreigner. Despite having all the required documents, he was forced into a legal battle to prove his very identity — a fate shared by thousands of marginalized residents in Assam, particularly those living near the border.

The ordeal began when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, acting on a report from the Electoral Registration Officer of the 25 No. Golakganj Legislative Assembly Constituency, filed a reference case against Matleb Ali. His name was listed in the 1997 draft electoral roll for his village Ramraikuti Part-I, but doubts were raised about his citizenship during house-to-house enumeration (Jan–Apr 1997). The matter was first referred to the IM(D)T Tribunal, later transferred to Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, and finally to the 10^th Foreigners Tribunal.

Despite being born and raised in India, Matleb was forced to prove he wasn’t an illegal migrant — a fate that disproportionately affects many poor, marginalised people in Assam, particularly in border districts like Dhubri.

Eid turned to despair

In mid-2023, just a day before Eid, Matleb’s world turned upside down. While he was working in Guwahati to earn enough to celebrate the festival with his family — his wife, two children, and elderly mother — police officers in plain clothes came to his home in Ramraikuti and handed a notice to his wife. The document summoned him before the Foreigners Tribunal.

His young daughter handed over the notice when he returned home. The joy of Eid evaporated as the devastating contents of the letter became clear. “It was as if all the light had gone out of our lives,” his wife later recalled while speaking to CJP Assam team.

Matleb knew the road ahead would be difficult. Fighting a tribunal case required time, money, and legal knowledge — resources he did not have. If he chased documents and attended hearings, his family would go hungry. If he chose to work, he would miss court dates and lose the case.

CJP steps in, hope rekindled

In desperation, Matleb turned to a trusted neighbour, who introduced him to Moon Kazi, a community volunteer with Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). From that moment on, the tide began to turn.

CJP’s District Volunteer Motivator (DVM) for Dhubri, Habibul Bepari, quickly visited the family. After reviewing the documents, he escalated the case to Nanda Ghosh, CJP’s Assam State In-charge, and Advocate Ishkander Azad, a member of CJP’s legal team in the district.

CJP Assam Team outside the Foreigners Tribunal Court in Dhubri

The family, mentally and emotionally exhausted, found renewed hope. “Without CJP, I could never have fought this alone,” said Matleb, his voice filled with emotion after receiving the order declaring his citizenship.

CJP took over the case with full dedication — collecting documents, filing applications, visiting government offices, and providing legal representation. This allowed Matleb to remain home and earn a living while the organization fought the case on his behalf.

Documents provided in the Tribunal to establish Matleb’s identity and lineage

The following documents were provided to the Tribunal in order to establish the Indian identity of Matleb:

• HSLC Admit Card (Ext-A) – Verified as genuine by SEBA, establishing both his date of birth and parentage.
• School Certificate (Ext-B) – Issued by Agomani School, confirming his education and village of residence.
• Copy of shifting certificate issued by the Secretary, Satrasal Gaon Panchayat

His family tree was also established:

• Grandparents: Sonaullah Sk and Kosimon Bewa — Voter records from 1966, 1970, 1977, and 1985 show them living in Ramraikuti.
• Father: Kasem Ali — Listed as a voter in 1977.
• Mother: Moslema Bewa — Listed as a voter from 1979 onward, including with Matleb in the 1997 and 2008 rolls.

In addition to electoral records, land deeds were also provided:

• Matleb’s father owned land since 1962, as per Khatian No. 64 (Ext-E), backed by the original land records and verified through the Land Records Officer’s testimony (DW-3).
• Matleb himself co-owns land with his family in Ramraikuti, as shown by Periodic Kheraj Patta (Ext-M).

Additionally, Matleb’s own name consistently appears in voter rolls from 1997, 2008, and 2023, and he holds an Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext-L) issued in 2013.

The Legal Proceedings: Evidence vs suspicion

When the matter finally came before the tribunal, Advocate Ishkander Azad presented a compelling argument. He highlighted Matleb’s strong documentary evidence — including voter records of three generations, land documents, and school certificates. Azad also emphasized the hardship Matleb faced in commuting from distant work locations just to attend hearings, often at great financial and emotional cost.

Notably, the Referral Authority presented no witnesses or documentary evidence. In contrast, Matleb submitted:

• 13 documents (Exts A to M), including educational records, land documents, and voter lists from 1966 to 2023.
• Oral evidence from:
  • Himself (DW-1)
  • His mother, Moslema Bewa (DW-2), who fully corroborated his statements
  • A Land Records official (DW-3), who authenticated historical land ownership

The tribunal accepted the entire chain of documentary and oral evidence as genuine and trustworthy.

The Order: “He is Indian”!

After considering the evidence, Tribunal Member Rafiqul Islam delivered a clear verdict:

“From the evidence on record and finding no rebuttal evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the opposite party and documents exhibited by the opposite party in support of his testimony… Moreover, though the State cross examined both DW-1 and DW-2, the State could not demolish the evidences that grandparents of opposite party were not citizens of India and therefore the opposite party cannot be termed as a foreigner as suspected by the referral authority.” (Para 11)

He ordered that:

• The lineage from Indian grandparents, consistent voter records, land ownership, and educational credentials are sufficient to establish citizenship.
• There was no rebuttal evidence from the state to challenge the authenticity of any claims or documents.
• Matleb was born in India to Indian parents residing in Assam, and therefore qualifies as a citizen of India by birth under Indian law.

The tribunal answered the reference in the negative, officially declaring Matleb Ali not a foreigner.

A mother’s blessing, a daughter’s celebration

The order came just days after another joyful event in the family: Matleb’s daughter passed her matriculation examination. It was a moment of double celebration in the Ali household.

His mother, Moslema Bewa, broke down in tears of relief and gratitude. She showered blessings on the CJP team:

“Allah tomak bhalé rakhuk, āro jāté mānsher sahāy korbār pān! (May Allah keep you safe and grant you the strength to help many more!)”

She insisted the team stay for a meal, a simple but heartfelt gesture from a family who had just come out of darkness into light. Now, her son stood vindicated — not a foreigner, but a citizen, a father, and a man free to dream again.

Matleb’s story is not an exception — it is a window into the lives of countless Indians caught in the storm of suspicion and statelessness. His case underscores how easily the poor can be branded as outsiders in their own land — and how community-led legal action can restore rights, dignity, and hope.

CJP Team Assam with Matleb Ali, outside his home

Thanks to the determined efforts of CJP, Matleb Ali’s name has been cleared. He is no longer just a “case” — he is a citizen of India.

The complete order may be read below.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

The post Matleb Ali declared Indian by Tribunal, ending a long fight to prove his identity appeared first on SabrangIndia.