In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has clarified that merely holding documents like Aadhaar, PAN card, or voter ID does not confer Indian citizenship, as these serve only for identification or availing services, not as proof of nationality under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
The pronouncement came while the Court was seized of a bail application filed by Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, alleged to be a Bangladeshi national. He stands accused of entering India without valid travel documents, residing in the country for over a decade, and obtaining multiple forged identity papers, including an Indian passport. His plea asserted that he was a bona fide Indian citizen and that his records were linked to tax filings and business registrations.
Justice Amit Borkar, while rejecting the application, examined the statutory scheme governing nationality. The Court observed that the Citizenship Act, enacted by Parliament in 1955, constitutes the controlling legislation for determining nationality in India. It prescribes who qualifies as a citizen, the lawful modes of acquiring citizenship, and the conditions under which it may be lost. The Court noted that the statute draws a deliberate distinction between lawful citizens and “illegal migrants,” the latter being expressly barred from obtaining citizenship through most statutory routes.
The Bench further remarked that the allegations in the present case extend beyond unauthorised entry or overstay, encompassing deliberate misrepresentation of identity and fabrication of official records to gain access to benefits reserved for citizens. The Court stated that such conduct directly implicates the sovereignty of the nation and the integrity of its legal system.
As the genuineness of Sardar’s Aadhaar card is presently under scrutiny by the Unique Identification Authority of India, and investigative efforts continue into a suspected organised network enabling such activities, the Court found merit in the prosecution’s submission that there existed a credible risk of his absconding. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
The Court observed that, during the framing of the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly was confronted with the urgent task of delineating citizenship in the wake of Partition. While the Constitution incorporated transitional provisions to determine citizenship at the inception of the Republic, it conferred upon Parliament the plenary authority to enact comprehensive legislation on the subject—a role subsequently discharged through the enactment of the Citizenship Act.
When framing the Constitution, the Court noted, the Constituent Assembly had to address the immediate and pressing question of defining citizenship in the aftermath of Partition. While the Constitution itself contained transitional provisions determining initial citizenship, it vested Parliament with plenary power to legislate comprehensively on the matter—a mandate fulfilled by the Citizenship Act.
Picture Source :
