The Calcutta High Court has ruled that standard identity and financial documents, including Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, voter identification, bank passbooks, and ancestral land records, do not constitute conclusive evidence of Indian citizenship.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta issued the ruling while rejecting a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of an individual alleged to be a Bangladeshi citizen. The bench affirmed that under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the statutory obligation to establish citizenship rests entirely on the individual.
Statutory Burden of Proof Unmet
In its decision, the High Court noted that the detainee failed to present sufficient evidence establishing citizenship by birth, as neither a valid birth location nor a date of birth was adequately documented.
The judges also identified substantial discrepancies in records concerning the detainee’s parentage and lineage. Official documents reflected conflicting names for the detainee’s father, while submitted records failed to demonstrate a legitimate familial connection to a maternal aunt. Additionally, the citizenship status of the relatives through whom the detainee claimed descent remained unverified.
Adverse Inference Drawn Following Refusal of DNA Test
During the legal proceedings, the bench had suggested that DNA testing of the detainee’s deceased parents could help substantiate the claimed biological relationship and citizenship status. However, both the detainee and the petitioner declined to identify the burial sites of the parents. Consequently, the court drew an adverse inference against the detainee regarding the Indian citizenship of his parents.
Addressing the reliance on civil identification records, the court emphasized that voter cards, Aadhaar documents, PAN cards issued by the Income Tax Department, and bank account records each fail individually or collectively to serve as definitive proof of national status.
Background of Detention and Electoral Roll Review
The habeas corpus petition was filed by the detainee’s uncle, who alleged that his nephew had been unlawfully held in custody since June 18, 2026. According to the petitioner, the detainee’s name had been flagged as under adjudication during the 2026 Special Intensive Review of electoral rolls before being removed from the voter list.
The petitioner contended that an appeal against the voter list deletion was currently pending and that the detainee was denied a hearing prior to his detention. However, the High Court concluded that the petitioner and the detainee failed to meet the required legal standards to establish citizenship, refusing to interfere with the ongoing detention.
