New Delhi:
The clarification has triggered sharp reactions from opposition parties, which have accused the government of creating uncertainty over citizenship rights.
The controversy has also renewed focus on India’s citizenship laws. Indian citizenship is governed by Part II of the Constitution, covering Articles 5 to 11, and the Citizenship Act, 1955.
While the Constitution defined citizenship at its commencement on 26 January 1950, Parliament has the power to regulate how citizenship is acquired, determined and lost through legislation.
Speaking to iTV Network, former Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Quraishi said a citizenship document is a long-felt necessity and that the requirement was introduced through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003.
Quraishi said he supports its implementation, but stressed that it should be carried out in a planned and gradual manner, with a clear roadmap spread over five years.
He cautioned against imposing the exercise abruptly on citizens, saying it should not be “pushed down the throats of citizens” in the way he likened to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represented the Election Commission of India in the Supreme Court in the SIR case, told iTV Network that there is no single document under the Constitution or the Citizenship Act that conclusively proves Indian citizenship. He said the NRC was introduced through an amendment but has been implemented only in Assam.
Dwivedi said that, in the absence of a nationwide NRC, different authorities rely on different documents for their own purposes. He said citizenship is generally determined by birth, the citizenship of one’s parents, or by a citizenship certificate granted by the Government of India.
He added that while the Election Commission accepts documents such as passports for electoral purposes, the Supreme Court has held that its findings on citizenship are not final.
Dwivedi said a nationwide NRC should eventually be implemented to bring clarity and end the controversy over citizenship.
Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi said a passport is clear evidence of Indian citizenship. He said it is a relevant and admissible document unless there are reasons to doubt its validity.
Lekhi said a passport may not be conclusive proof of citizenship. However, that does not mean it has no evidentiary value.
He said the current controversy wrongly treats a passport as inadmissible instead of merely non-conclusive. According to him, this is an attempt to remove passports from the list of documents citizens can rely on to prove their citizenship.
Lekhi added that this gradually weakens the entire set of official documents available to Indians for establishing their citizenship.
