GUWAHATI — The Gauhati High Court has held that PAN cards and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) cannot, by themselves, establish Indian citizenship unless the records supporting their issuance are also proved.
The observation came while dismissing a petition filed by Kulchan Begum, who had challenged a Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring her a foreigner who entered India after March 25, 1971, The Live Law reported.
A division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund found that Begum had failed to establish her relationship with her claimed father and grandparents through reliable evidence. The court also held that she could not prove the continuous residence of her claimed grandparents and father in Assam, as required under Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
“The PAN Card and EPIC 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 a proof of citizenship of India,” the Court observed.
Begum had told the court that she was born in Assam on April 25, 1977. To support her citizenship claim, she relied on electoral rolls from 1966 and 1970 containing the names of her claimed grandparents. She also submitted her father’s PAN card and EPIC, her own voter ID, a ration card and an acknowledgement receipt for her application to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Her case was that her father was an Indian citizen whose name appeared in electoral records. She further argued that he had contested Lok Sabha and Assembly elections and served as an elected councillor of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation.
The Foreigners Tribunal, however, rejected her claim, holding that she had failed to establish the necessary family link with the person identified as her father. It consequently classified her as someone who had entered India after March 25, 1971.
Court rejects plea for another opportunity to produce evidence
Challenging the tribunal’s opinion, Begum argued before the High Court that her documentary evidence had not been properly appreciated. She also blamed incorrect legal advice from her previous counsel, claiming that she had been told the documents already submitted were sufficient to establish her citizenship.
She sought to have the matter sent back to the tribunal so that she could produce additional witnesses, including her parents and other family members.
The bench rejected the request, noting that she had been given several opportunities to present further evidence before the tribunal but had failed to do so. It considered her explanation about incorrect legal advice an afterthought, intended to fill the gaps in her case.
The court also pointed out that Begum had not approached the jurisdictional Bar Council with a complaint alleging professional incompetence or misconduct by her former lawyer.
Her allegation that the tribunal had decided the matter without hearing her was also rejected. Referring to the tribunal’s order sheet, the High Court noted that both sides had been heard before the matter was fixed for pronouncement of the final opinion.
Court finds gaps in family records and documentary evidence
Examining the documents submitted by Begum, the High Court found that they did not sufficiently establish her relationship with her claimed parents.
The bench noted that the certificate issued by an Area Sabha representative had not been proved through the testimony of its author. The acknowledgement receipt for her NRC application was also not supported by the original document.
Similarly, the ration card and the 2018 electoral roll did not establish the required parental relationship, the court observed.
The bench also pointed to discrepancies in the family history presented by Begum and the ages recorded in electoral rolls.
It noted that the name of her claimed father appeared in electoral records for the first time in 1997, when his age was recorded as 50. The court found no evidence demonstrating the continuous residence of her claimed grandparents and father in Assam between 1970 and 1997.
Referring to Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act, the bench said Begum was required to establish that her grandparents and father had continuously resided in Assam.
The court further held that her claimed father’s participation in parliamentary and Assembly elections, as well as his tenure as an elected councillor of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, could not independently establish that she was his daughter.
Finding no sufficient grounds to interfere with the tribunal’s decision, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the opinion declaring Begum a foreigner who entered India after March 25, 1971.
The bench also recalled and revoked the interim bail granted to her in 2022.
