In Re Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act 1955 vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Secretary
AI Summary
In a crucial interim order, the Supreme Court of India continued its strict oversight of the Assam NRC upgradation, directing state personnel to exclusively focus on NRC duties to ensure timely completion. While acknowledging financial and logistical challenges, the Court left existing deadlines untouched and deferred a constitutional challenge to Rule 4A of the Citizenship Rules to a larger bench, emphasizing the paramount importance of an accurate and earnest NRC process.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The Supreme Court of India is actively supervising the ongoing National Register of Citizens (NRC) upgradation process in Assam. The Court reviewed the minutes of a preliminary meeting held by a committee it had constituted earlier. The State Coordinator for NRC reported significant workload and anticipated delays in the scheduled publication dates for the draft and final NRC, as well as a projected increase in the project's financial requirements. The Court also considered a challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 4A of the Citizenship Rules concerning the inclusion of certain immigrants, which it *prima facie* declined to address at this stage, reserving it for a Constitution Bench.
Timeline of Events
Filing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274/2009.
Filing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562/2012, the lead case.
Filing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876/2014.
Filing of Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 311/2015, 450/2015, 449/2015.
Date of a previous Court order constituting a Committee for NRC.
Preliminary meeting of the Court-constituted Committee held.
Date of the current Court order.
Next meeting of the Committee scheduled.
Earlier fixed date for Draft NRC publication.
Earlier fixed date for Final NRC publication.
Next hearing date for all connected matters before the Court.
Key Factual Findings
The preliminary meeting of the Committee, constituted pursuant to the Court's order dated 05.11.2015, was held on 24.11.2015.
Source: Current Court Finding
The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held on 04.12.2015.
Source: Current Court Finding
All State personnel deployed in connection with NRC shall exclusively perform duties related to NRC upgradation/preparation.
Source: Current Court Finding
It may not be possible to publish the draft and final NRC on 1st January, 2016 and 1st of March, 2016 due to voluminous work involved.
Source: Recited from State Coordinator, NRC
The financial outlay for the NRC work is likely to exceed the sanctioned amount of Rs. 288 crores and anticipate an increase to Rs. 660 crores.
Source: Recited from State Coordinator, NRC
A proposal for the enhanced amount has been submitted to the Registrar General and received by the Union of India and is under process.
Source: Recited from State Coordinator, NRC / Recited from ASG Submission
The vires of Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, does not, *prima facie*, disclose any infirmity requiring orders at this advanced stage of NRC preparation.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 offered suggestions for the verification process within the NRC framework. Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2014 vigorously contended against the validity (vires) of Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, specifically arguing that the Authority should not include persons who came to India between 1966 and 1971 and were on the 1971 Electoral Roll, unless they were declared foreigners and subsequently registered.
Respondent's Arguments
The Additional Solicitor General submitted the minutes from a preliminary meeting of a Court-constituted committee and reported on its decisions. The State Coordinator for National Registration, NRC, provided a report highlighting the voluminous nature of the work, indicating that it might not be possible to meet the earlier fixed dates of January 1, 2016 (draft) and March 1, 2016 (final) for NRC publication, and stated that the financial outlay was likely to exceed the sanctioned amount (from Rs. 288 crores to Rs. 660 crores), with a proposal for the same under process.
Court's Reasoning
The Court took on record the committee minutes and directed the committee to continue its work. To ensure timely completion, it directed the exclusive deployment of all state personnel for NRC duties. Despite the Coordinator's concerns about delays, the Court declined to modify the publication dates, emphasizing that all efforts must be made to meet the deadlines, particularly with dedicated staff. It mandated the Project Coordinator to report directly to the Registrar General of Citizen Registration, reinforcing the Registrar General's statutory authority and responsibility for an accurate NRC. Regarding financial outlay, the Court noted the proposal was under process and directed an early decision without issuing further orders. For W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009, suggestions were permitted to be addressed directly to the Coordinator. For W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2014's challenge to Rule 4A, the Court found *prima facie* that Section 6A(3) and the proviso to Rule 3(2) adequately addressed the situation, and Rule 4A showed no infirmity at the advanced stage of NRC preparation, hence the matter was left for a Constitution Bench to decide.
- Active Judicial Oversight
- Emphasis on Efficiency and Timely Completion
- Procedural Regularity
- Deference to Statutory Authority
- Pragmatic Approach to Complex Administrative Tasks
Specific Directions
- 1.The Committee constituted pursuant to the order dated 05.11.2015 shall continue its deliberations and complete the task assigned to it.
- 2.All State personnel deployed in connection with NRC shall henceforth exclusively do and perform only works relating to the upgradation/preparation of the NRC and will not be assigned any other duty till the completion of the process.
- 3.The Coordinator shall ensure that NRC works are carried on in full swing and make all endeavour to complete the same within the shortest possible time.
- 4.The Project Coordinator will report directly to the Registrar General of Citizen Registration insofar as the preparation and upgradation of NRC is concerned.
- 5.All government officers, employees and agencies connected with the preparation/upgradation of NRC would be responsible to the Registrar General of Citizen Registration to ensure that the work is carried out in earnest for correct and accurate content.
- 6.The concerned authority will take an appropriate decision on the proposal for the enhanced financial outlay (Rs.660 crores against Rs.288 crores sanctioned) at an early date.
- 7.The writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 is permitted to address suggestions regarding the verification process to the Coordinator, who will consider and implement them in his best judgment.
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Procedural)
This is an interim order providing specific procedural directions for the ongoing NRC process. While binding on the administrative actions of the parties, the core legal questions regarding the vires of Rule 4A are explicitly deferred to a Constitution Bench, limiting its precedential value on substantive law.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
3 Jul 2009
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 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). 562/2012
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. For stay, impleadment as party respondent, directions, early hearing and office report)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 876/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 274/2009 (With appln. For clarification/direction and further direction and impleadment and intervention and Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 311/2015 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and appln.(s) for seeking leave to file written arguments and Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 450/2015 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 449/2015 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)
Date : 01/12/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Manish Goswami,Adv. |
|---|---|
| In W.P. 562/12 | Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. |
| WP(C) 876/14 & RR in<br>562/12 | Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. |
| In W.P. 274/2009 | Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda,Sr.Adv.<br>Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. |
| Ms. Shruti Gupta,Adv. |
Ms. Ankita Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Partha Sil,Adv. WP(C) 450/15,449/15 Mr. Tavish B. Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia,ASG For UOI Mr. R.M. Bajaj,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Tushar Bakshi,Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. For Assam Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Krishna Sarma,Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy,Adv. Mr. Navnit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Kankana A.Adv. Mr. A.K. Sanghi,Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Gautam,Adv. Mr. M.P. Gupta,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. For Goa Mr. Sidhartha Bhatnagar,Adv. For Jharkhand Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Mohd. Waquas,Adv. For Sikkim Mr. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham,Adv. Ms. Anuradha Aruputham,Adv. Mr. Yusuf Khan,Adv. Mr. Shobhit Nanda,Adv. For M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co. For Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shamshery,AAG Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ishu Prayash,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Mr. S.S.Pandana Reddy,Adv. For UT of Andaman & Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran,Adv. & Nicobar Addmn. Mrs. G. Indira,Adv. For Manipur Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. Ms. Linthoingambi Thongam,Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding,Adv. Ms. B. Kushbansi,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv. For Uttarakhand Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sharma,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.
| For West Bengal | Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri,Adv.<br>Mr. Parijat Sinha,Adv.<br>Mr. Somnath Banerjee,Adv. |
|---|---|
| For ECI | Mr. Neeraj Kumar,Adv.<br>Mr. Mohit D. Ram,Adv. |
| For State of U.P. | Mr. Vibhu Tiwari,Adv.<br>Mr. Rajiv Dubey,Adv.<br>Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv. |
| For Guahati HC | Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. |
| For Nagaland | Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.<br>Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.<br>Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,Adv. |
| Mr. Prateek Jalan,Adv.<br>Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv.<br>Mr. Rahul Kriplani,Adv.<br>Mr. Ankit Yadav,Adv.<br>Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv. | |
| Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,Adv.<br>Ms. Upma Shrivastava,Adv.<br>Mr. Ajoy Ghosh,Adv. | |
| Mr. Rakesh Khanna,Sr.Adv.<br>Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad,Adv. | |
| Mr. A.V. Manavalan,Adv.<br>Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv. | |
| Mr. Salman Khurshid,Sr.Adv.<br>Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi,Adv.<br>Mr. Mustafa Khaddam Hussain,Adv.<br>Mr. Abdul Qadir,Adv.<br>Ms. Kanishka Prasad,Adv. | |
| Mr. Milan Laskar,Adv.<br>Mr. Parvez Dabas,Adv.<br>Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam,Adv. | |
| Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. | |
| Mr. Mohan Pandey,Adv. | |
| M/s Corporate Law Group,Adv. | |
| Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. |
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed,Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat,Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. Ashim Chamuah,Adv. Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra,Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
At the outset, Shri P.S. Patwalia learned Additional Solicitor General has placed before us the minutes of the preliminary meeting of the Committee constituted pursuant to the order of the Court dated 05.11.2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2012. The said meeting was held on 24.11.2015. We have considered the issues that were taken up by the said Committee and the preliminary decisions arrived at and also the fact that the next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held on 04.12.2015. While taking the said minutes on record, we direct that the Committee shall continue its deliberations and complete the task assigned to it.
We have considered the report of the State Coordinator for National Registration,NRC. We have also heard Mr. Prateek Hajela, State Coordinator, in person. Having considered the said report and the statements made, we direct that all the State personnel deployed in connection with NRC shall henceforth do and perform only works relating to the upgradation/preparation of the NRC and they will not be assigned any other duty till the completion of the process. The Coordinator has also indicated that given the nature of voluminous work involved, it may not be possible to publish the draft and final NRC on 1st January, 2016 and 1st of March, 2016 as ordered by this Court earlier. As there is still some time left and as we have now directed that the NRC staff would be exclusively performing duties connected with the preparation of the NRC only, we do not consider it necessary to pass any orders modifying or altering the dates fixed earlier except to require the Coordinator to ensure that the said works are carried on in full swing and to make all endeavour to complete the same within the shortest possible time.
To ensure that the work of the upgradation/preparation of NRC is continued with the required pace in order to meet the time schedule ordered by this Court, we further direct that the Project Coordinator
will report directly to the Registrar General of Citizen Registration who is the authority under Section 14A of the Citizenship Act and Rule 5 of the Rules framed thereunder insofar as the preparation and upgradation of NRC is concerned. Having regard to the provisions of the Act and Rules it would be needless to say that all government officers, employees and agencies connected with the preparation/upgradation of NRC would be responsible to the said authority and the said authority is required to ensure that the work of preparation/upgradation of NRC is carried out in the right earnest to ensure that the draft and the final NRC to be published is correct and accurate in its content. It is considered necessary to emphasise the above provisions of the law at this stage in view of the fact that the final stages of the preparation of NRC has been reached involving the crucial process of verification; publication of the draft list and publication of the final list after hearing all objections that may be raised with regard to the draft publication.
Shri Hajela has also submitted that the financial outlay for the work is likely to exceed and he anticipates such increase to Rs.660 crores against the sanctioned amount of Rs.288 crores. In fact according to Shri Hajela a proposal to the said effect has been submitted to the Registrar General. Shri Patwalia, learned ASG, on instructions received, submits that the said proposal has
been received and is under process. As the proposal for the enhanced amount has been received by the Union of India, we do not consider it necessary to pass any order or direction in this regard except that the concerned authority will take an appropriate decision in the matter at an early date.
W.P. (C)No. 274 of 2009
Shri Gaurav Pachnanda, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has offered some suggestions with regard to the process of verification etc. in the preparation/upgradation of NRC. As this Court has not dealt with the modalities and parameters of the exercise which has been left to the concerned authority to be performed, we permit the aforesaid writ petitioner to address his suggestions to the Coordinator which will be considered by the Coordinator and implemented in his best judgment.
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.876 OF 2014
Writ Petition (Civil) No.876 of 2014 has already been referred to the Constitution Bench. Nonetheless we have considered the vires of Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 in view of the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioners who contends that the Authority engaged in the preparation of NRC should not take into
account the cases of such persons included in the Electoral Roll of 1971 who belong to the stream of immigrants who came to India between 1966 and 1971 (24.03.1971) and who have not been declared to be foreigner and who have not registered themselves thereafter. Prima facie**, we find that the provisions of Section 6A(3) read with the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 adequately take care of the situation. Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 does not, prima facie, disclose any such infirmity which would require any orders to be passed at this stage i.e. when the work of NRC preparation has reached an advanced stage. It is on the aforesaid basis that we decline to pass any order leaving the entire matter to be decided by the Constitution Bench.**
List all the matters on 13th January, 2016 at 3.00 P.M.
We request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to make available this Bench on the said date i.e. 13th January, 2016 at 3.00 p.m.
(MADHU BALA) (VINOD LAKHINA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER COURT MASTER