Kolkata11 minutes agoAuthor: Tirthankar Das
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that documents such as Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and voter identity cards are not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship, while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of a man detained during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal.
Court defines legal standards for citizenship proof
The case was filed by Suman Molla, who challenged the detention of his nephew, Nasir, claiming he had been sent to a detention centre after his name was deleted from the electoral roll despite an appeal being pending.
Voter ID not conclusive evidence
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that a voter ID card merely proves that a person was once enrolled in the electoral rolls and does not establish citizenship. The court also held that Aadhaar, PAN cards, and even a bank account cannot, by themselves, be treated as proof of Indian citizenship.
The bench said the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving citizenship as required under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and therefore declined to interfere with the authorities’ decision.
Detention petition dismissed by High Court
According to the court, Nasir was detained on June 18, 2026, under a Ministry of Home Affairs circular dated May 2, 2025, which allows a detainee 60 days to establish Indian citizenship. The court noted that, by the time the judgment was delivered on July 20, Nasir had failed to produce any document conclusively establishing his citizenship.
During the hearing, Nasir claimed that his parents had died in India. The court even explored the possibility of directing a DNA test using their mortal remains. However, since neither Nasir nor the petitioner could identify where his parents were buried, the bench drew an adverse inference regarding his claim that his parents were Indian citizens.
Burden of proof remains petitioner
The court also questioned the petitioner’s credibility, noting inconsistencies in his statements. While he described himself as Nasir’s cousin in a police complaint, he claimed to be his uncle in the writ petition. The bench further observed that the petitioner, aged 38, had claimed to have raised Nasir, who is 46 years old, making the claim implausible.
Court cites Immigration Act provisions
The Centre informed the court that a detailed inquiry and verification had concluded that Nasir was a Bangladeshi national, following which a detention order was issued. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish Nasir’s Indian citizenship.
