Calcutta High Court Observes Voter ID, Aadhaar and PAN Are Not Conclusive Proof of Indian Citizenship

PTI, July 29, 2026, Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that voter identity cards, Aadhaar and PAN cards are not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship.

The observation came while the court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Suman Molla, who claimed that his nephew, Nasir, had been placed in a detention camp after his name was deleted from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, even though an appeal against the deletion was pending.

The petitioner relied on Nasir's voter identity card, Aadhaar card, PAN card issued by the Income Tax Department and a bank passbook to contend that he was an Indian citizen and not a foreign national.

A division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta held that voter identity cards, Aadhaar and PAN cards are not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship.

Observing that a voter identity card only establishes that a person was enrolled in the electoral rolls, the bench noted that Nasir's name had been deleted during the 2026 SIR process.

The court also held that opening a bank account, by itself, is not proof of Indian citizenship.

"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 established Nasir's Indian citizenship, the court said it was not inclined to interfere with the decision of the authorities and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

The bench noted that Nasir was detained on June 18, 2026, in accordance with a Ministry of Home Affairs circular dated May 2, 2025, and is currently lodged in a detention centre.

It noted that under the circular, a detainee is given 60 days to establish Indian citizenship.

As of the date of the judgment on July 20, Nasir had failed to produce any document establishing his citizenship, the court said.

The bench also permitted the petitioner's advocate to speak to Nasir over the phone, a facility provided by the state.

During the conversation, Nasir claimed that his parents had died in India.

The court noted, however, that although Nasir claimed his parents had died in India, he was unable to identify where they had been buried.

"We enquired of the parents of the detainee in order to direct DNA testing if the writ petitioner agrees, with the mortal remains of the parents in order to establish that the parents of the detainee were in India," the bench observed.

"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 court said.

Taking a dim view of the petitioner, the court observed that Molla had not approached it with clean hands.

It noted that while he described himself as Nasir's cousin in a written complaint to the police, he claimed in the writ petition that he was the detainee's uncle.

The petition also stated that following the death of Nasir's father in 1980, Molla had brought up the detainee.

The court, however, noted that the petitioner is 38 years old while the detainee is 46 years old.

The bench rejected the petitioner's claim that he had brought up Nasir as his uncle.

Appearing for the Centre, counsel submitted that a detention order issued against Nasir on June 18, 2026, recorded that an inquiry, interrogation and verification into his citizenship had found him to be a Bangladeshi national.