Possessing Aadhaar, Voter ID Doesn't Make One Indian Citizen: Bombay High Court
A person does not become a citizen of India merely by possessing documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card or a voter ID, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said while refusing bail to a man, allegedly from Bangladesh, for entering India illegally.
The man is accused of staying in India for more than a decade with forged and fabricated documents.
A bench of Justice Amit Borkar said provisions of the Citizenship Act lay down who can be a citizen of India and how citizenship can be acquired and documents such as the Aadhaar card, PAN card and voter ID are only meant for identification or availing services.
The court refused bail to Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, alleged to be a Bangladeshi national, who entered India illegally without a valid passport or travel documents. He allegedly procured forged Indian documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID and also an Indian passport.
In 1955, Parliament passed the Citizenship Act which created a permanent and complete system for acquiring citizenship, Justice Borkar noted.
"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.
"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 High Court said.
The law draws a clear line between lawful citizens and illegal migrants, the bench said.
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 allegations in the case are not small and it is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying, but it is about making and using fake and forged identity documents with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen, the High Court said.
Sardar was 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).
Sardar in his bail plea said he was a bona fide citizen of India and that there was no conclusive or reliable evidence to prove he is a national of Bangladesh.
He further claimed his documents are linked with his income tax records and business registration and that he has been residing in Mumbai's neighbouring Thane district since 2013.
The prosecution opposed the plea, claiming if the accused was released on bail, he may abscond.
The police further said a probe was on to ascertain if there was a larger organised network involving illegal immigration and identity fraud.
The court in its order noted the allegations against Sardar are not limited to a mere technical violation of immigration norms, but indicate a case of deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining the Indian citizenship benefits.
When the Constitution of India was being drafted, the country had just gone through a historic transformation and the partition at the time caused a massive movement of people across borders, creating a need to decide who would be accepted as citizens of the new nation, it noted.
Keeping this in mind, framers of the Constitution decided to make an arrangement for deciding citizenship, the high court 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Electoral rolls can never be static': SC says Bihar SIR 'voter-friendly'
Observing that electoral rolls cannot remain "static" and there is bound to be a revision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the expanded list of acceptable documents of identity from seven to 11 for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters' list was in fact 'voter-friendly and not exclusionary.' The Supreme Court also said that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit.(ANI/File) As the row over the SIR which has been challenged in the top court escalated, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Election Commission(EC) had the residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. The bench also disagreed with a submission by a petitioner that the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed. Leaders of opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms(ADR) have challenged the electoral roll revision drive in Bihar. During the hearing of arguments, the ADR submitted that the exercise should not be allowed to be carried out pan-India. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said the EC notification on the SIR ought to be set aside for want of legal basis and never being contemplated in law. He, therefore, contended it couldn't be allowed to go on. The EC can never conduct such an exercise since inception and it is being done for the first time in history and if allowed to happen only God knows where it will end, he added. "By that logic special intensive revision can never be done. One-time exercise which is done is only for the original electoral roll. To our mind, the electoral rolls can never be static," the bench noted. "There is bound to be revision," the top court said, "otherwise, how will the poll panel delete the names of those who are dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies?" The bench also told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, that despite their arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar was exclusionary, it appeared that the large number of acceptable documents was "actually inclusionary". "The number of documents in summary revision conducted earlier in the state was seven and in SIR it is 11, which shows it is voter friendly. We understand your arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar is exclusionary but a high number of documents is actually inclusionary." The bench then went on to tell Sankaranarayanan that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit. It referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act (RP Act), which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral rolls for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi further asked Sankaranarayanan, "When the primary legislation says 'in such manner as deemed fit' but the subordinate legislation does not... will it not give a residual discretion to EC to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with the peculiar requirement of a special revision?" Sankaranarayanan submitted that the provision only allowed revision of the electoral rolls for "any constituency" or "for part of a constituency" and the EC couldn't wipe out the rolls of an entire state for fresh inclusion. "Actually, it is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional power," Justice Bagchi said. The residuary power of the EC flows from Article 324 of the Constitution and the RP Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the EC in the instant case has only added the word "intensive", that's all, the judge noted. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for the NGO, alleged the EC played "mischief" and removed the search feature from the draft roll and the list of 65 lakh people whose names were deleted for being dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies. "This happened just a day after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi did a press conference pointing out that over lakh people(in an Assembly segment in a Lok Sabha constituency in Bengaluru) were fake voters," he added, arguing that an ordinary person was denied the right to search their name on the draft roll whether dead or alive or migrated to another place. Justice Kant said he was unaware of any such press conference but when it comes to the Registration of Electors Rule of 1960, Section 10 mandates the EC to publish a copy of the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. "They have to publish the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. That's a minimum threshold under the law. However, we would have liked it if it was published on the website for wider publicity," Justice Bagchi said. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said the petitioners claimed the rural population of Bihar was not tech savvy and now they were talking about the inability of the same people in searching online. On August 12, the top court said inclusion and exclusion of citizens or non-citizens from the electoral rolls was within the remit of the Election Commission and backed its stand to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the SIR of voters' list in Bihar.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How to claim your share of $4.5M GameStop data breach settlement. Details here
There are only a few days left to claim your share of a $4.5 million settlement with GameStop. This comes after a lawsuit said the company sold customers' personal data to Facebook without permission, according to WFFA. In June, GameStop emailed customers about the settlement. It denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid trial costs and risks.(REUTERS) The class action lawsuit said GameStop broke federal law, specifically the Video Privacy Protection Act, or VPPA. The company took customer data from purchases on its website and gave it to Facebook. GameStop did not admit to doing anything wrong as part of the settlement. The deadline to file a claim is Friday, August 15. Also Read: GameStop's wild ride has Indian retail traders joining in Who can get money from the GameStop settlement? Anyone who bought a video game from GameStop's website between August 18, 2020, and April 7, 2025, and had a public Facebook profile with their name at the time of purchase is eligible. In June, GameStop sent emails about the settlement to customers who bought games on their website. Although GameStop did not admit fault, it agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of continuing the lawsuit. If you got that email, you are likely part of the settlement group. How much money can you get? Eligible people can get either up to $5 in cash or a GameStop voucher worth up to $10. It is not clear how many people qualify for the settlement. How do you file a claim? First, check your email. The payments are linked to a unique ID number in the email from GameStop. This ID is a 10-character mix of letters and numbers. Anyone with this ID can file a claim before August 15 to get their payment. If you choose a voucher, the credit will be added to your GameStop account linked to your email. If you choose cash, you will get paid through Zelle, Venmo, or PayPal. If you did not get an email with an ID but believe you qualify, you can fill out a paper claim form. When will you get paid? Payments may take some time because they depend on court approval. A court hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2025. If approved, payments will be sent about 45 days after final approval or after any appeals are finished. Voucher payments will also be emailed about 45 days after final approval.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17 minutes ago
- First Post
‘No foreign backing, no arms' for Hezbollah, Lebanon tells Iran's security chief
Lebanon's president warns against foreign-backed armed groups as his cabinet approves a US-backed plan to disarm Hezbollah amid Iranian assurances of respect for sovereignty and renewed debate over the group's weapons. No group in Lebanon is permitted to bear arms or rely on foreign backing, its president told a visiting senior Iranian official on Wednesday after the cabinet approved the goals of a U.S.-backed roadmap to disarm the Iran-aligned Hezbollah group. During a meeting in Beirut with Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's top security body, Joseph Aoun warned against foreign interference in Lebanon's internal affairs, saying the country was open to cooperation with Iran but only within the bounds of national sovereignty and mutual respect. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Larijani said the Islamic Republic supports Lebanon's sovereignty and does not interfere in its decision-making. 'Any decision taken by the Lebanese government in consultation with the resistance is respected by us,' he said after separate talks with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, whose Amal movement is an ally of Hezbollah. By 'resistance', Larijani was alluding to the Shi'ite Muslim militant Hezbollah, which was founded in 1982, grew into a 'state-within-a-state' force better armed than the Lebanese army and has repeatedly fought Israel over the decades. 'Iran didn't bring any plan to Lebanon, the U.S. did. Those intervening in Lebanese affairs are those dictating plans and deadlines', said Larijani. He said Lebanon should not 'mix its enemies with its friends - your enemy is Israel, your friend is the resistance'. 'I recommend to Lebanon to always appreciate the value of resistance." The US submitted a plan through President Donald Trump's envoy to the region, Tom Barrack, setting out the most detailed steps yet for disarming Hezbollah, which has rejected mounting calls to disarm since its devastating war with Israel last year. Hezbollah has rejected repeated calls to relinquish its weaponry although it was seriously weakened in the war, with Israel killing most of its leadership in airstrikes and bombings. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It was the climax of a conflict that began in October 2023 when the group opened fire at Israeli positions along Lebanon's southern frontier in support of its Palestinian Islamist ally Hamas at the start of the Gaza war. Aoun also said recent remarks by some Iranian officials had not been helpful, and reaffirmed that the Lebanese state and its armed forces were solely responsible for protecting all citizens. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran supported any decision Hezbollah makes, adding that this was not the first attempt to strip the group of its weapons.
