NRC Extracts Not Admissible To Prove Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigner Tribunal Order

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that extracts of National Register of Citizens (NRC) produced to prove Indian citizenship is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Shamima Jahan observed:

"The petitioner had thereafter relied on the NRC details wherein the petitioner was shown as the son of Abul Haki. The same is again not admissible in evidence. In a recent decision delivered by this Court in WP(C) no. 1837/2025 Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique Vs. Union of India and Ors. had held that NRC document has no value in the eye of law in considering the citizenship of the person like the present petitioner". 

For context, in Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique Vs. Union of India and Ors. the High Court by relying on an earlier decision in Abul Mozid's case had held, "...As per Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948, records of census are not open to inspection and thus not admissible in evidence. Therefore, in Bhanbhasa Sheikh Vs. Union of India, 1970 Assam LR 206, a single Bench of this Court categorically held that NRC extracts produced to prove domicile in India is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in Bhanbhasa Sheikh (supra)". 

The ruling was delivered in a writ petition filed by one Jibon Ali, who had challenged the opinion passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal, Kamrup, declaring him a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream.

As per the factual matrix of the case, his projected grandfather late Hakimuddin Sheikh was issued an annual Khiraj Patta in 1942. Notably, Khiraj Patta is a permanent, heritable, and transferable land settlement document in Assam.

He claimed that his father's name appeared in NRC details and that he himself was born in 1956 and later shifted residence due to erosion caused by the Brahmaputra river. He relied on voters' lists of 1977, 1985, 1997 and 2005, along with a Gaonburah certificate stating that he was a permanent resident and that his name appeared in the 1977 voters' list.

The Tribunal had declared him a foreigner on the grounds that his age in the 1977 voters' list suggested his name should have appeared in a pre-1971 voters' list, that he failed to establish linkage with his projected grandfather, and that the Gaonburah certificate did not disclose how the Gaonburah knew the petitioner to be an Indian.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the Khiraj Patta and NRC details established his lineage, and that the Gaonburah certificate proved his link with his father. The State, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner failed to produce any voters' list prior to 1971 establishing linkage, and that the Gaonburah certificate could not establish citizenship.

The High Court found that the Khiraj Patta relied upon by the petitioner was not supported by any revenue receipt or material showing its continuation by the heirs.

The Court noted, “in the said annual Khiraj Patta that if the person to whom it was granted expires during the period of the said annual Khiraj, his legal heirs would get the possessory right during the remaining period, however, the petitioner had nowhere mentioned as to what happened to the said annual Khiraj Patta after the death of his said projected grandfather.”

With regard to the voters' lists, the Court held that although the petitioner's name appeared in later voters' lists, there was no document showing linkage with his father or grandfather in any record prior to 25 March 1971.

On the Gaonburah certificate, the Court found, “on a simple reading of the said certificate, it could be discerned that the Gaonburah had not stipulated anything regarding his personal knowledge about the petitioner or his family or that he knew the petitioner or his projected father personally. He simply wrote that Jibon Ali, the petitioner, father's name is late Ashan Ali and the address where the petitioner resided. He did not write that petitioner or his projected father were resident of the said locality.”

The court said that the Tribunal rendered opinion upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record and that the high court's certiorari jurisdiction being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, can't be used for "reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal although for the ends of justice, some exercise has been done to the said effect.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit.

Case Number: WP(C)/2741/2021

Case Name: Jibon Ali v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Read Judgement