Bhanu Jai Rabha vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1020 OF 2017

KAMALAKHYA DEY PURKAYASTHA AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1096 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1095 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1101 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1104 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1147 OF 2017 & I.A.NO.101687 OF 2017 IN SLP(C)NO.13259 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI,J.

Signature Not Verified 1. Heard the learned counsels for the Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2017.12.09

parties.

10:04:17 IST Reason: 2

2. The writ petitions and the

Interlocutory Application(s) under

consideration have been filed seeking

directions from the Court as to the manner

in which the expression “originally

inhabitants of the State of Assam”

appearing in Clause 3(3) of the Schedule

(Special Provisions as to manner of

Preparation of National Register of Indian

Citizen in State of Assam) to the

Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and

Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules,

2003, is to be understood and furthermore

for directions laying down the procedure by

which such persons are required to be

identified.

3. Relevant clauses of the Schedule

including Clause 3(3) reads as follows:

“2. Manner of preparation of draft National Register of Indian Citizen in State of Assam— 3

(1)(a) ……

(b) ……….

(c) …………

(2) The Local Registrar of Citizen Registration shall receive the filled up application forms, at the same place where the applications are issued, and issue the receipt thereof to the applicant.

(3) The Local Registrar of Citizen Registration, after the receipt of the application under sub-paragraph (2) shall scrutinize the applications and after its verification, prepare a consolidated list thereof which shall contain the names of the following persons, namely—

(a) person whose name appear in any of the electoral rolls upto the midnight of the 24th day of March, 1971 or in National Register of Citizens, 1951;

(b) descendants of the persons mentioned in clause

(a) above;

4 3. Scrutiny of applications—

(1) The scrutiny of applications received under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 shall be made by comparing the information stated in the application form with the official records and the persons, of whom the information is found in order, shall be eligible for inclusion of their names in the consolidated list.

(2) The names of persons who have been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall not be included in the consolidated list:

Provided that the names of persons who came in the State of Assam after 1966 and before the 25th March, 1971 and registered themselves with the Foreigner Registration Regional Officer and who have not been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall be eligible to be included in the consolidated list.

(3) T he names of persons who are originally inhabitants of the State of Assam and their children and descendants, who are Citizens of India, shall be included in the consolidated list if the citizenship of such persons is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the registering authority;

(underlining is ours) 5

(4) The Local Registrar of Citizens Registration may, in case of any doubt in respect of parental linkage or any particular mentioned in the application received under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2, refer the matter to the District Magistrate for investigation and his decision and Local Registrar of Citizens Registration shall also inform the same to the individual or the family.”

4. Clause 3(3) provides for

identification of persons entitled to be

included in the National Register of

Citizens (NRC) by a process different from

what is enumerated in Clause 3(2) and,

therefore, the said Clause i.e. 3(3)

constitutes an exception thereto. Clause

3(3) contemplates a less strict and

vigorous process for deciding claims for

inclusion in the NRC insofar as persons who

are originally inhabitants of the State of

Assam are concerned. Identification of

persons who are originally inhabitants of 6

the State of Assam as against those who are

not does not determine any entitlement for

inclusion in the NRC which is on the basis

of proof of citizenship alone and nothing

else. Neither does such identification

confer any special entitlement or benefit.

This has, infact, been clarified in several

of the reports submitted by the learned

Coordinator before this Court.

5. The prayer made in the writ

petitions and the I.As, as admitted in the

course of the hearing by the learned

counsels for the writ

petitioners/applicants, is founded on an

apprehension that by the process of

verification of the claims for inclusion in

the NRC based on the claim to be originally

inhabitants of the State of Assam a

superior class of citizens is being

created. The question who is originally

inhabitant of the State of Assam, according 7

to the applicants and the writ petitioners,

may also have impact on the entitlement of

such persons in the matter of opportunities

for education, employment etc. vis-a-vis

the second category of citizens i.e. who

are not originally inhabitants of Assam.

6. All such apprehensions are wholly

unfounded. The exercise of upgradation of

NRC is not intended to be one of

identification and determination of who are

originally inhabitants of the State of

Assam. The sole test for inclusion in the

NRC is citizenship under the Constitution

of India and under the Citizenship Act

including Section 6A thereof. Citizens who

are originally inhabitants/residents of the

State of Assam and those who are not are at

par for inclusion in the NRC.

7. In view of the above, we do not

find any reason to issue any direction or 8

clarification as to the meaning of the term

“originally inhabitants of the State of

Assam” as sought for in the present Writ

Petitions and the Interlocutory

Application(s) which are accordingly

disposed of in terms of our directions and

observations as above.

.…...................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

.....................,J.

(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) NEW DELHI DECEMBER 5, 2017 9

ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.3 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1020/2017

KAMALAKHYA DEY PURKAYASTHA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 1095/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 1101/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 1096/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 1104/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 1147/2017 (X) I.A.NO.101687 OF 2017 IN SLP(C)NO.13259 OF 2017

Date : 05-12-2017 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR

Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR

Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Gaggar, Adv.

Mr. Ajit Wagle, Adv.

Mr. A.S. Tapader, Adv.

Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Goel, Adv.

Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Naman Kamboj, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordhsip and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

Writ Petitions and the Interlocutory Application(s) are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.)