Calcutta High Court: Name in Voter Roll Not Conclusive Proof of Citizenship; Aadhaar and PAN Also Not Sufficient Evidence

MP, July 24, 2026, Kolkata : The Calcutta High Court has held that records generated during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls cannot by themselves conclusively establish Indian citizenship, stressing that a person whose nationality is questioned must independently prove citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The court observed that documents submitted in the SIR process, or the fact that a person’s name was once included in the electoral roll, did not conclusively establish Indian citizenship.

A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by one Suman Molla seeking the release of his detained relative, who was picked up on June 18 on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national.

The petitioner claimed the detainee had been wrongly held despite his appeal against deletion of his name during the 2026 SIR process remaining pending. The court declined to interfere with the detention.

The bench observed that the legality of decisions taken during the SIR exercise was not under consideration in the present proceedings.

The court also made significant observations on documentary proof of nationality.

It said a voter identity card only proves enrolment in the electoral roll, while an Aadhaar card, PAN card and bank account are not conclusive evidence of citizenship.

Land records of ancestors and even a relative’s passport, by themselves, were also held insufficient to establish the detainee’s claim.

The bench further observed that although the state relied on the detainee’s alleged admission while in detention that he was a Bangladeshi national, even if that admission were left out of consideration, the burden of proving Indian citizenship still rested on the detainee.

The court found no reliable evidence of citizenship by birth or descent, nor any claim of citizenship by registration under the Citizenship Act.

It also noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claimed relationship with the detainee and drew an adverse inference after both repeatedly failed to disclose where the detainee’s parents were buried despite repeated opportunities.