BA BBA LL.B LLB LL.M AIBE ADPO JUDICIARY ADVOCATES CLAT JLO APO UGC NET (CHANNEL)

The Bench further noted that the writ petitioner, despite repeated requests, did not disclose the place where the mortal remains of the parents of the detainee were lying. This was another aspect on which the Bench drew adverse inference as against the writ petitioner and the detainee. Thus, refusing to interfere with the decision of the authorities, the Bench dismissed the petition. Cause Title: Suman Molla v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.(Case No.: WPA(H)/58/2026) Appearance Petitioner: Advocates Mokaram Hossain, Razzak Hossain, Karnab Biswas Respondent: Additional Govt Pleader Dibasish Basu, Senior Advocate Souvik Nandy, Advocates Sneha Dutta, Purnendu Das, Arijit Majumder, Shreyashi Sarkar

Voter ID, Aadhaar, PAN, Bank Account, Record Of Rights Not Conclusive Proof Of Citizenship: Calcutta High Court The petition before the Calcutta High Court was filed by the uncle of the detainee, who, according to him, was wrongfully detained. ByTulip Kanth|31 July 2026 11:20 AM Voter ID, Aadhaar, PAN, Bank Account, Record Of Rights Not Conclusive Proof Of Citizenship: Calcutta High Court Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, Calcutta High Court While dismissing the petition of a man who alleged that his nephew was detained after his name was deleted from the electoral roll in the SIR, 2026 process, the Calcutta High Court has held that a Voter Identity card, Aadhaar card, bank account, and record of rights are not conclusive proof with regard to Indian Citizenship. The petition was filed by the uncle of the detainee, who, according to him, was wrongfully detained. The Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held, “Voter Identity Card is not a conclusive proof with regard to Indian Citizenship. It is evidence of enrolment of the detainee in the electoral roll. Name of the detainee stands deleted from the electoral roll in the SIR, 2026 process.” “AADHAAR Card, cannot by itself be conclusive proof of Indian citizen. So also a Permanent Account Number issued by the Income Tax Department. Opening of a Bank Account, by itself, again is not a proof of Indian citizenship”, it stated while also adding, “Record of Rights of the great grand-father and the grand-father of the detainee are annexed to the writ petition. Again, those do not establish conclusively the Indian citizenship of the detainee.” Advocate Mokaram Hossain represented the Petitioner while Additional Govt Pleader Dibasish Basu represented the Respondent. Factual Background The detainee, an adult, claimed himself to be 46 years of age. He was taken under detention on June 18, 2026, in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs Circular dated May 2, 2025, and was housed at a detention centre. The case as set up by the petitioner was that in the Special Intensive Review (SIR), 2026, the detainee was initially classified as ‘under adjudication’. The name of the detainee was struck off from the Voters’ list in the SIR of 2026, but an appeal directed against such decision is pending. According to the petitioner, the detainee was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal under the SIR process of 2026. It was their case that the great-grandfather of the detainee was recorded in the CS Record of Rights in respect of an immovable property. The detainee possessed a Voter Identification Card as well as a Bank Account. Reasoning On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that a detention order dated June 18, 2026 was issued to the detainee and the same spoke of inquiry, interrogation and verification with regard to citizenship of the detainee. The detention order stated that such inquiry, interrogation and verification revealed the detainee to be a Bangladeshi National. The detention order, therefore, proceeded to exercise powers conferred under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, read with paragraph 8 and 12 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025. The Bench also stated, “When Indian authorities alleged that, a person detained is a foreign national, the onus is on the detainee to establish his or her nationality. This is so by reason of Section 16 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946.” The Bench noticed that there was an acknowledgement on the part of the detainee when he was in the detention centre that he is a Bangladeshi national. It was also noticed that the writ petition did not disclose the birth certificate of the detainee, and adequate material to establish the place of birth or date of birth was absent in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit. Citizenship by birth was also not established.