Voter ID, Aadhaar, PAN Not Proof of Citizenship, Rules Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that documents such as voter identity cards, Aadhaar cards and Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards are not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship. The observation came while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Suman Molla, who challenged the detention of his nephew, Nasir, after his name was removed from the electoral rolls during the 2026 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal. The court held that the petitioner had failed to establish the detainee's Indian citizenship as required under law.

The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta. Molla argued that Nasir was an Indian citizen and relied on documents including a voter identity card, Aadhaar card, PAN card and bank passbook to support his claim. However, the court observed that these documents do not by themselves establish citizenship. It noted that a voter identity card merely confirms that a person's name was included in the electoral rolls at a particular time and does not serve as conclusive evidence of nationality.

The bench further ruled that maintaining a bank account cannot be treated as proof of Indian citizenship. Referring to the provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the court stated that the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual concerned. It held that neither the petitioner nor the detainee had discharged that burden and therefore declined to interfere with the action taken by the authorities. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.

Also Read: Calcutta HC Adjourns Abhishek Banerjee’s Petition Challenging Eight FIRs Until July 30

According to the court, Nasir was detained on June 18, 2026, under a Ministry of Home Affairs circular issued on May 2, 2025, and is currently lodged in a detention centre. The circular provides detainees with 60 days to establish their Indian citizenship. The bench noted that as of its judgment dated July 20, Nasir had failed to produce any document that conclusively established his citizenship despite being given the opportunity to do so.

During the proceedings, the court allowed the petitioner's advocate to speak with Nasir over the telephone through a facility provided by the state. Nasir reportedly stated that his parents had died in India. However, the bench noted that he was unable to identify where they had been buried. The judges observed that they had considered directing DNA testing of the parents' mortal remains to verify the claim but said both the petitioner and the detainee refused to identify the burial sites. The court said this led it to draw an adverse inference regarding the claim that Nasir's parents were Indian citizens.

The High Court also questioned the credibility of the petitioner, observing inconsistencies in his statements. While Molla had described himself as Nasir's cousin in a police complaint, he identified himself as the detainee's uncle in the writ petition. The petition also claimed that he had raised Nasir after the death of his father in 1980, but the court pointed out that the petitioner is 38 years old while the detainee is 46, making that assertion implausible. Counsel appearing for the Centre submitted that an inquiry, interrogation and verification conducted before the detention order concluded that Nasir was a Bangladeshi national, a finding the court did not disturb while dismissing the petition.

Also Read: TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's Office Demolition Stayed By Calcutta High Court Order