Computer-generated NRC legacy data cannot be relied upon without a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, for proving electronic records, and that documents such as PAN Card and Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot independently establish Indian citizenship.
Staff Reporter
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) opinion declaring a person as a foreigner. The court held that computer-generated NRC legacy data cannot be relied upon without a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, for proving electronic records, and that documents such as PAN Card and Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot independently establish Indian citizenship. The HC observed that while minor variations in names of ancestors may not by themselves defeat a citizenship claim, the person concerned must establish a continuous and credible linkage between himself and ancestors whose presence in India before the relevant cut-off date is established through admissible evidence.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan was hearing a petition (WP(C)/5471/2019) filed by Aminul Hoque challenging the opinion passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Guwahati, in FT Case No. FT[K(M)-4]1077/2017, arising out of F.T. Case No. 842/2016, on February 28, 2019, which had declared him to be a foreigner. Before the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, the petitioner claimed that his family had been residing in Assam for generations and relied upon several documents, including 1951 NRC extracts, voter lists from 1966 onwards, a 1973 land sale deed, a PAN card, EPIC, school certificate, and family records.
The petitioner contended that discrepancies in the names of his father and grandfather were only spelling variations and should not defeat his citizenship claim. He argued that his father and other ancestors appeared in old electoral records.
The High Court rejected the petitioner's use of NRC records, stating that the documents he provided were computer-generated and could not be automatically accepted as proof, as electronic records need to meet specific legal standards to be considered valid evidence. The Court noted that the petitioner relied on voter lists showing names of individuals across different villages, including Dhobakura, Ghugudoba and Hashdoba, but failed to establish that these records related to the same family lineage. It further noted that the issue was not merely about differences in the spelling of names but whether the petitioner could prove that the persons appearing in various documents were actually connected through a continuous family chain.
The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to establish that Aminul Hoque, whose name appeared in later electoral records, was related to Pashan Ali and Mohiruddin Sheikh, whose names appeared in earlier records. Finding no such error in the Foreigners Tribunal's reasoning, the court refused to interfere with the opinion dated February 28, 2019. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the consequences of the Foreigners Tribunal's opinion were directed to follow.
The Court, in its order, observed, "…it is well settled that PAN Card and EPIC are not proof of citizenship. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that he is an Income Tax assessee and therefore, as the PAN card was issued on the basis of self-declaration by the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have called for the relevant records from the office of the concerned Income Tax Officer to prove from the records regarding the entries contained in PAN card."
"The said two image IDs are computer-generated documents. Thus, without a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, would have no evidentiary value," the Bench further observed.
In its verdict, the Bench stated, "...the Court finds no material to hold that the opinion assailed in this writ petition is bad on facts or in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that the said opinion was perverse on any count whatsoever. Therefore, this challenge fails and consequently, this writ petition is dismissed."
Also Read: Assam: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit on infrastructure and proper courtrooms in FTs