In Re Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act 1955 vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Secretary
AI Summary
The Supreme Court reinforces its rigorous oversight on the Assam NRC updation, issuing key directives for dedicated staff, financial scrutiny, and a legal challenge to Rule 4A of the Citizenship Rules. This crucial order impacts millions of lives, ensuring accuracy and accountability in the highly sensitive citizenship determination process.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The Supreme Court convened to review the progress of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) updation in Assam. It noted the minutes of a preliminary committee meeting held on November 24, 2015, formed under a prior order in W.P. (Civil) No. 562 of 2012. The State Coordinator reported significant work volume, indicating the unlikelihood of meeting previously set deadlines for draft and final NRC publication (January 1 and March 1, 2016, respectively). The Coordinator also submitted a proposal to increase the financial outlay from sanctioned Rs. 288 crores to Rs. 660 crores, which is under review by the Union of India. A petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 offered suggestions for verification. The Court considered, but deferred to a Constitution Bench, challenges to Rule 4A of the Citizenship Rules regarding immigrants from 1966-1971, finding no prima facie infirmity in the rule at this stage.
Timeline of Events
Supreme Court order in W.P. (Civil) No. 562 of 2012, leading to the constitution of a committee.
Preliminary meeting of the Committee constituted by the Court.
Date of the current court order and hearing.
Scheduled date for the next meeting of the Committee.
Earlier fixed deadline for the publication of the draft NRC (Coordinator anticipates missing this).
Next hearing date for all connected matters.
Earlier fixed deadline for the publication of the final NRC (Coordinator anticipates missing this).
Key Factual Findings
The Committee constituted pursuant to the 05.11.2015 order has held its preliminary meeting and is continuing deliberations.
Source: Current Court Finding
NRC work is voluminous, making it difficult to meet original draft and final publication deadlines of January 1, 2016, and March 1, 2016.
Source: Recited from State Coordinator's Report
A proposal for enhanced financial outlay of Rs. 660 crores (against sanctioned Rs. 288 crores) for NRC work has been received by the Union of India and is under process.
Source: Recited from State Coordinator's Report and ASG's statement
The provisions of Section 6A(3) read with the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, adequately address the situation concerning immigrants from 1966-1971.
Source: Current Court Finding
Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, prima facie does not show 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
The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 argued that the NRC authority should exclude persons from the 1966-1971 immigrant stream, even if included in the 1971 Electoral Roll, if they have not been declared foreigners or subsequently registered. They also presented suggestions regarding the verification process for NRC updation.
Respondent's Arguments
The Additional Solicitor General (for Union of India) presented minutes from the preliminary meeting of the court-constituted committee, confirming its progress. The State Coordinator for NRC reported on the voluminous nature of the work, indicating that previously set deadlines for draft and final NRC publication (January 1, 2016 and March 1, 2016) were unlikely to be met. A proposal for a significant increase in financial outlay (from Rs. 288 crores to Rs. 660 crores) for the NRC work was also submitted and is under process by the Union of India.
Court's Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the committee's progress and directed its continued deliberations. Despite the State Coordinator's report on volumetric work and anticipated delays, the Court declined to modify existing NRC deadlines, instead mandating the exclusive deployment of State personnel for NRC duties and directing the Coordinator to strive for completion within the shortest possible time. To ensure accountability and accuracy, the Project Coordinator and all associated government entities were directed to report directly to the Registrar General of Citizen Registration under Section 14A of the Citizenship Act and Rule 5 of the Rules. Regarding the challenge to Rule 4A, the Court found prima facie that Section 6A(3) read with the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2003 Rules adequately addressed the concerns of 1966-1971 immigrants. It stated that Rule 4A showed no prima facie infirmity requiring intervention at the advanced stage of NRC preparation, leaving the definitive determination of the vires of Rule 4A to the Constitution Bench to which W.P.(C) No. 876/2014 was already referred.
- Emphasis on Timely Justice
- Strict Adherence to Procedure
- Judicial Oversight for Public Interest Matters
- 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 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 endeavor to complete the same within the shortest possible time.
- 4.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.
- 5.All government officers, employees and agencies connected with the preparation/upgradation of NRC would be responsible to the Registrar General of Citizen Registration, who is required to ensure that the work is carried out in earnest for correct and accurate draft and final NRC.
- 6.The concerned authority (Union of India) will take an appropriate decision on the proposal for the enhanced financial outlay (Rs. 660 crores against sanctioned Rs. 288 crores) at an early date.
- 7.The writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 is permitted to address suggestions regarding the process of verification etc. in the preparation/upgradation of NRC to the Coordinator, who will consider and implement them in his best judgment.
- 8.All matters are listed on 13th January, 2016 at 3:00 P.M.
- 9.The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India is requested to make this Bench available on 13th January, 2016 at 3:00 P.M.
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Procedural for most aspects, but substantive on prima facie view of Rule 4A)
This order primarily provides procedural directions for the ongoing NRC updation. While it offers a prima facie view on Rule 4A's validity, the final legal determination on its vires is expressly reserved for a Constitution Bench, making this specific point persuasive but not binding precedent.
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
jj 1 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 Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. 562/12 In W.P. 274/2009 Signature Not Verified Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda,Sr.Adv. Digitally signed by Madhu Bala Date: 2015.12.02 Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. Ms. Shruti Gupta,Adv. 16:41:54 IST Reason: Ms. Ankita Sharma,Adv. 2 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.<br>Tushar Bakshi,Adv. | |
|---|---|
| Ms.<br>Rashmi Malhotra,Adv.<br>Ms.<br>Sushma Suri,Adv. | |
| For Assam | Mr.<br>Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv. |
| Mr.<br>Krishna Sarma,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Avijit Roy,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Navnit Kumar,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Kankana A.Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>A.K. Sanghi,Sr.Adv. | |
| Ms.<br>Sunita Gautam,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>M.P. Gupta,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>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.<br>S.S. Shamshery,AAG |
| Mr.<br>Amit Sharma,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Ishu Prayash,Adv. | |
| Ms.<br>Ruchi Kohli,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>S.S.Pandana Reddy,Adv. | |
| For UT of Andaman & | Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran,Adv. |
| & Nicobar Addmn. | Mrs. G. Indira,Adv. |
| For Manipur | Mr.<br>Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. |
| Ms.<br>Linthoingambi Thongam,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Z.H. Isaac Haiding,Adv. | |
| Ms.<br>B. Kushbansi,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv. | |
| For Uttarakhand | Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sharma,Adv. |
| Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. | |
| 3 | |
| For West Bengal | Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri,Adv. |
| Mr. Parijat Sinha,Adv. | |
| 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. |
| Mr. Rajiv Dubey,Adv. | |
| Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv. | |
| For Guahati HC | Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. |
| For Nagaland | Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. |
| Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. | |
| Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Prateek Jalan,Adv. | |
| Ms.<br>Malvika Trivedi,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Rahul Kriplani,Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Ankit Yadav,Adv.<br>Mr.<br>T. Mahipal,Adv. | |
Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,Adv. Ms. Upma Shrivastava,Adv. Mr. Ajoy Ghosh,Adv. Mr. Rakesh Khanna,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad,Adv. Mr. A.V. Manavalan,Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid,Sr.Adv. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi,Adv. Mr. Mustafa Khaddam Hussain,Adv. Mr. Abdul Qadir,Adv. Ms. Kanishka Prasad,Adv. Mr. Milan Laskar,Adv. Mr. Parvez Dabas,Adv. 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. 4
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.
5
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 6 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.
7
W.P. (C)No. 274 of 2009
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 8
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. 13 th January, 2016 at 3.00 p.m.
(MADHU BALA) (VINOD LAKHINA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER COURT MASTER