The Gauhati High Court has held that PAN cards and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) issued on the basis of self declarations without formal verification cannot by themselves establish Indian citizenship unless supported by the underlying records.

A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund dismissed a petition filed by petitioner challenging a Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring her a foreigner who entered India after March 25, 1971.

The High Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish her relationship with her projected father and grandparents through cogent and reliable evidence. It observed that she had also failed to establish the continuous residence of her projected grandparents and father in Assam as required under Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The petitioner had claimed that she was born in Assam on April 25, 1977. She relied on voter lists of 1966 and 1970 containing the names of her projected grandparents along with other documents like her father PAN card and EPIC, her own voter ID, ration card and an acknowledgement receipt for her NRC application.

Petitioner case was that her father was an Indian citizen whose name appeared in the electoral records and who had also contested Lok Sabha and Assembly elections and served as an elected councillor of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation.

The Foreigners Tribunal had rejected her claim holding that she had failed to establish the necessary linkage with her projected father. Tribunal classified her as a person who had entered India after 25 March 1971.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the documentary evidence. She also claimed that her previous counsel had wrongly advised her that the documents already produced were sufficient to establish her citizenship. She sought a remand to enable her to examine additional witnesses including her parents and other family members.

Rejecting the plea of wrong legal advice, the Court noted that the petitioner had been given several opportunities to produce additional evidence before the Tribunal but had failed to do so. It observed that the alleged wrong advice was an afterthought intended to fill the gaps in her case. The Court also noted that she had not approached the jurisdictional Bar Council alleging professional incompetence or misconduct by her former counsel.

High Court further rejected her contention that the Tribunal had decided the matter without hearing her. It noted that the Tribunal's order sheet showed that both sides had been heard before the matter was fixed for pronouncement of the final opinion.

On the evidence, the High Court observed that the petitioner's PAN card and EPIC as well as those of her projected father were not proof of citizenship. It held that such documents were issued on self applications without formal enquiry and could not be accepted as proof of citizenship unless the records supporting them were also established.

High Court also found that the petitioner's documents did not establish her relationship with her projected parents. The Area Sabha representative's certificate was not proved through its author while the NRC application acknowledgement was not supported by the original document. The ration card and voter list of 2018 also failed to establish the required parental linkage.

High Court further noted inconsistencies in the petitioner's projected family history and the ages recorded in the electoral rolls. It observed that the name of her projected father appeared for the first time in the 1997 voter list when he was recorded as 50 years old. There was no evidence establishing the continuous residence of her projected grandparents and father in Assam between 1970 and 1997.

Referring to Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act, the Court observed that the petitioner was required to prove that her grandparents and father had continuously resided in Assam.

High Court also held that the fact that the petitioner's projected father had contested parliamentary and Assembly elections and served as an elected municipal councillor was not sufficient to establish that she was his daughter.

Therefore, High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Foreigners Tribunal's opinion. It also recalled and revoked the interim bail granted to her in 2022.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Zaman, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. G. Pegu, CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, Standing Counsel, FT & Border; Mr. P. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate; and Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India.

Tags: