Assam citizenship imbroglio: Guwahati HC order a setback to siblings, family members of "declared foreigners"

By A Representative

In what is being viewed as a major setback to those who have been fighting against the decision of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) of Assam seeking to qualify names of siblings and other members of family as kept pending, the Guwahati High Court has upheld the NRC State coordinator’s controversial order in this regard.
The order was issued by on May 2, 2018 by NRC state coordinator, Prateek Hajela, who said, the names of siblings and other family members of DFs be “kept pending” from NRC. Human rights activists say, the order had made “entire families vulnerable only because one person in their family has been declared a foreigner.”
Following the HC order, siblings and other family members of Declared Foreigners (DFs) would now have to submit documents proving their citizenship before a Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT), even as proving the authenticity of these documents. They are unlikely to see their name in the NRC draft that is expected to be out on July 30, 2018.
The Citizens for Peace and Justice (CPJ), led by well-known human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, has said in a statement, “There is also the fear that this would render section 3 (1) (a) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 meaningless. According to this section, every person born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987 shall be a citizen of India by birth.”
CPJ says, “Now, even if a person is declared as ‘foreigner’, his siblings might have born in India before July 1, 1987, which makes them a citizen of India by birth. Moreover, say a person actually illegally infiltrated in to India post-March 25, 1971 and finally declared a ‘foreigner’ by the Tribunal, his siblings might have entered before the cut-off date as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, that does not make them a foreigner.”
The controversial NRC order of May 2, 2018 stems from a Guwahati High Court order from exactly a year ago. In 2017, the court passed a common order on two interrelated writ petitions pertaining to the citizenship status of one Aktara Khatoon. The petitioner in the first case (360/2017) had been declared a foreigner by the Foreigners’ Tribunal at Nagaon on October 31, 2016.
While passing the order the Tribunal directed the Superintendent of Border (Hojai), to conduct a fresh inquiry into the brothers and sisters of Aktara Khatun, stating that if she was a foreigner, her brothers and sister from the same father also cannot be citizens of India. These siblings Abdul Motin, Abdul Kadir and Sahara Khatun became the petitioners in the second case (1610/2017).
The HC disposed of both the cases by passing a common order that stated, “…Once a proceedee is declared to be a foreigner it would only be a logical corollary to such declaration that his brothers, sisters and other family members would also be foreigners.”
It added, “Therefore, it becomes the duty of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (B) to cause enquiry in respect of the brothers, sisters and other family members of the declared foreigners and thereafter, to make a reference to the competent Foreigners’ Tribunal against such brothers, sisters and other family members.”
Following the High Court directive, the NRC state coordinator on May 2, 2018 said that the names of brothers, sisters and other family members of DFs ‘pending’. The order was issued by the state coordinator, NRC, to all Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar of Citizen Registration (DRCR) of all districts.
The order said, “As per this judgment, the Superintendent of Police (B) are required to make references of such persons, namely, brothers, sisters and other family members of Declared Foreigners (DF) to the Foreigners Tribunals and their names are accordingly not be included in the NRC until finalization of such references.”
According to CPJ, “There is a mechanism in place to address claims and objections even if someone’s name does not appear in the final draft; however, given the complications that have already cropped up, many fear that the provision might just be yet another futile bureaucratic exercise making proving citizenship an insurmountable challenge.”

Comments

From Kerala to Bangladesh: Lynching highlights deep social faultlines

By A Representative The recent incidents of mob lynching—one in Bangladesh involving a Hindu citizen and another in Kerala where a man was killed after being mistaken for a “Bangladeshi”—have sparked outrage and calls for accountability.

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha* This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

When a city rebuilt forgets its builders: Migrant workers’ struggle for sanitation in Bhuj

Khasra Ground site By Aseem Mishra* Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is not a privilege—it is a fundamental human right. This principle has been unequivocally recognised by the United Nations and repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India as intrinsic to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet, for thousands of migrant workers living in Bhuj, this right remains elusive, exposing a troubling disconnect between constitutional guarantees, policy declarations, and lived reality.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman* The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

Aravalli at the crossroads: Environment, democracy, and the crisis of justice

By Rajendra Singh* The functioning of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has undergone a troubling shift. Once mandated to safeguard forests and ecosystems, the Ministry now appears increasingly aligned with industrial interests. Its recent affidavit before the Supreme Court makes this drift unmistakably clear. An institution ostensibly created to protect the environment now seems to have strayed from that very purpose.

'Structural sabotage': Concern over sector-limited job guarantee in new employment law

By A Representative The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has raised concerns over the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB–G RAM G), which was approved during the recently concluded session of Parliament amid protests by opposition members. The legislation is intended to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

Search This Blog