The Bombay High Court
Credit: iStock Photo
Mumbai: In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has observed that a person does not become a citizen of India by merely possessing documents like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID Card but fulfilment of the provisions of the Citizenship Act.
The observations came from Justice Amit Borkar, who rejected the bail plea of Babu Abdul Rauf Sardar, allegedly from Bangladesh, who had entered India illegally, around 2013, and settled in Thane neighbouring Mumbai.
According to the police investigations, the accused had secured Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and also a Voter ID Card, Income Tax records, gas and electricity connections, fraudulently.
“The provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 lay down who can be a citizen of India and how citizenship can be acquired. Documents such as the Aadhaar card, PAN card and voter ID are only meant for identification or availing services,” the court said in its order which would have pan-India importance.
Justice Borkar stated that in 1955, the Parliament passed the Citizenship Act, which created a permanent and complete system for acquiring citizenship and the law draws a clear line between lawful citizens and illegal migrants.
“In my opinion, the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired and in what situations it can be lost,” he observed.
The Bangladeshi man is accused of staying in India for more than a decade with forged and fabricated documents, after having entered India illegally without a valid passport or travel documents and later allegedly procuring forged Indian documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID and also an Indian passport.
"In my opinion, the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired and in what situations it can be lost," he said.
“The Constitution laid down provisions which gave immediate clarity on who would be considered a citizen at the very beginning of the Republic and it gave the elected Parliament the powers to make laws on citizenship in future," the court noted.
"Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Citizenship Act," the court said, adding that people falling in the category of illegal migrants are barred from obtaining citizenship through most of the legal routes mentioned in the Citizenship Act, it added.
“This distinction is important because it protects the sovereignty of the country and ensures that benefits and rights meant for citizens are not wrongfully taken by those who have no legal status to stay in India," the court said.
The bench, while refusing bail to Sardar, noted that verification of his documents was still on and the investigation was also still continuing, and the police's fear that he may abscond if granted bail is a genuine apprehension.
The accused, who claims that he is an Indian citizen and not a national of Bangladesh, was booked and charged under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Passport (Entry to India) Act and the Foreigners Order.
The court noted the investigation in the case is still going on with regard to genuineness of the Aadhaar card, which is being verified by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), however, observed that this is a case of deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining the Indian citizenship benefits.
“This Court believes that the fear expressed by the prosecution is not an empty or imaginary fear. It is supported by the applicant's alleged past actions and the serious nature of the accusations. The danger of the applicant running away from the law or interfering with the investigation is real, and for this reason also, this is not a case where bail should be granted at this stage,” it noted.