PAN, voter IDs need supporting records: Gauhati HC while rejecting a woman's citizenship claim

The Gauhati high court has rejected a woman's claim of Indian citizenship, holding that PAN cards and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) issued on the basis of self-applications without formal verification cannot independently establish citizenship unless supported by the records underlying their issuance.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kulchan Begum of Darrang district, challenging a 2018 order by a Foreigners Tribunal in Mangaldai, declaring her a foreigner who entered India after March 25, 1971. (Gauhati high court website)The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kulchan Begum of Assam's Darrang district, challenging a 2018 order by a Foreigners Tribunal in Mangaldai, declaring her a foreigner who entered India after March 25, 1971.

A division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund observed that the documents she relied on, including her father's PAN card and voter ID and her own electoral identity card, were insufficient to establish her citizenship or her relationship with her claimed parents.

"The PAN Card and EPIC exhibited by the petitioner as Ext.1, Ext.5, Ext.6 and Ext.9 respectively, are not proof of citizenship. These are documents that are issued on self-application, without any formal enquiry by the Income Tax Department and Election Commission of India.

Therefore, unless the records supplementing the PAN Card and EPIC are proved, the said exhibited documents cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship of India," the court said in its November 5 judgment. The petitioner claimed that she was born on April 25, 1977, and brought up in Luitpar, Kharghuli, in Guwahati.

She had identified Sabed Ali and Jaheda Khatun as her grandparents and claimed that their names appeared in the 1966 and 1970 electoral rolls of Nosotra village in the then Kamrup district. She had projected Abu Chand Mohammad, son of Sabed Ali, as her father.

To establish her citizenship, she relied on the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, her father's PAN card and EPIC, her own voter identity card, a family ration card, the 2018 electoral roll and an acknowledgement receipt for her National Register of Citizens (NRC) application.

She had also argued that her father was an Indian citizen whose name appeared in electoral records and who had contested the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Barpeta and the 2011 Assam Assembly election from Baghbar. He had also served as an elected councillor of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation in 2013.

However, the high court held that his electoral and political credentials could not establish the relationship she claimed with him. "Thus, a mere fact that the projected father of the petitioner had offered his candidature in Lok Sabha Election and State Assembly Election and that he was an elected Ward Member of Guwahati Municipal Corporation, is not sufficient to prove that the petitioner has been able to establish her linkage with the said person," the judgment said.

The court also found inconsistencies in the petitioner's projected family history and the ages recorded in the electoral rolls. It noted that her claimed father's name first appeared in the 1997 electoral roll, where he was recorded as 50 years old.

The court observed that there was no evidence establishing the continuous residence of her claimed grandparents and father in Assam between 1970 and 1997, a period of 27 years. Referring to Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which contains special provisions relating to citizenship in Assam, the court said the petitioner was required to establish that her grandparents and father had continuously resided in the state.

The bench further observed that the petitioner's documents failed to establish the necessary family linkage. It noted that the certificate issued by an Area Sabha representative was not proved through its author. The ration card and the 2018 electoral roll also failed to establish her relationship with her claimed parents, the court said.

"None of the exhibited documents helps the petitioner to discharge her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that she is a citizen of India and daughter of parents who are Indian," the judgment observed.

The petitioner had also submitted a copy of an application in the NRC process as Exhibit 14. However, the court noted that the final draft of the NRC was not updated when the Tribunal passed its opinion. It therefore did not accept the document as evidence.

The petitioner had also sought another opportunity to establish her case by examining additional witnesses, including her parents, other family members and the Area Sabha representative.