The Calcutta High Court has held that Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and voter identity cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of Indian citizenship, while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed against the detention of a man whose name was deleted from the electoral rolls during West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 2026.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled that the petitioner and the detainee had failed to establish the latter’s Indian citizenship as required under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and declined to interfere with the detention order.
Petition challenged detention
The petition was filed by Suman Molla, who claimed that his nephew, Nasir, had been sent to a detention centre despite an appeal against the deletion of his name from the electoral rolls being pending.
Molla argued that Nasir was an Indian citizen and relied on several documents, including his voter identity card, Aadhaar card, Permanent Account Number (PAN) card issued by the Income Tax Department, and a bank passbook, to support the claim.
However, the High Court held that none of these documents, individually or collectively, constituted conclusive proof of Indian citizenship.
What the court said
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument, the Bench observed that a voter identity card merely establishes that a person’s name was included in the electoral rolls at a particular point in time and does not itself determine citizenship.
The court further noted that Nasir’s name had already been deleted from the electoral rolls during the 2026 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
Similarly, the Bench held that an Aadhaar card, which primarily serves as a proof of identity and residence, and a PAN card, issued for taxation purposes, cannot be treated as evidence of citizenship.
The court also ruled that opening or maintaining a bank account does not establish Indian citizenship.
Burden of proof not discharged
The Bench observed that under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual concerned.
“The writ petitioner and the detainee are unable to discharge the burden of proof as mandated by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025,” the court observed.
Holding that neither the petitioner nor the detainee had produced sufficient material to establish Indian citizenship, the court refused to interfere with the action taken by the authorities and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.
Detention under MHA circular
According to the court, Nasir was detained on June 18, 2026, in accordance with a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) circular dated May 2, 2025, and has since been lodged in a detention centre.
The Bench noted that the MHA circular provides 60 days to a detainee to establish Indian citizenship.
However, by the time the judgment was delivered on July 20, 2026, the detainee had failed to produce any document that conclusively proved his citizenship.
Court draws adverse inference
During the hearing, the court permitted the petitioner’s lawyer to speak to Nasir over the telephone through a facility provided by the State government.
During the conversation, Nasir claimed that both his parents had died in India.
The Bench, however, noted that he was unable to identify the places where they had been buried.
The judges observed that they had explored the possibility of directing a DNA test with the mortal remains of the parents to verify the claim, provided the petitioner agreed to identify the burial sites.
Since neither the petitioner nor the detainee disclosed the locations, the court drew an adverse inference.
“Since the detainee and the writ petitioner refused to identify the places where the mortal remains of the detainee’s parents are lying, we draw an adverse inference as against the detainee with regard to his parents being Indian citizens,” the Bench said.
Court questions petitioner’s credibility
The High Court also questioned the credibility of the petitioner, observing that he had not approached the court with clean hands.
It pointed out inconsistencies in his submissions, noting that while he had described himself as Nasir’s cousin in a written complaint to the police, he later claimed in the writ petition that he was the detainee’s uncle.
The petition further stated that Molla had raised Nasir after the death of his father in 1980.
However, the Bench found this claim implausible after noting that the petitioner is 38 years old while the detainee is 46 years old, making it impossible for him to have brought up someone older than himself.
Centre says inquiry found him to be Bangladeshi
Appearing for the Centre, counsel submitted that the detention order issued on June 18, 2026, was based on an inquiry, interrogation and verification process that concluded Nasir was a Bangladeshi national.
Finding the documents produced by the petitioner insufficient and rejecting his claims, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and allowed the detention order to remain in force.
