Developments in northeastern India have brought the issue of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) back into public discussion, with developments in Manipur and Assam placing questions of migration, citizenship verification and demographic change at the centre of the debate.
In Manipur, the Union government has deferred the house-listing phase of Census 2027, which was scheduled to begin on September 1, 2026. The decision followed sustained opposition from civil-society organisations demanding that an NRC be undertaken before the Census-related exercise. The deferment came against the backdrop of the ethnic conflict that has affected Manipur since May 2023 and the resulting political and security tensions.
The immediate demand behind the protests has been for an NRC based on the 1951 register before the Census is conducted. Organisations representing sections of the Meitei and Naga communities, among others, have called for such a register, arguing that citizenship verification should precede population enumeration and subsequent delimitation exercises. The Campaign for Just and Fair Delimitation (JFD) has been among the groups supporting the demand, along with various civil-society, women's, student and youth organisations.
The issue has also received political support in the State. Manipur's Legislative Assembly passed a unanimous resolution in 2022 calling for an NRC before the Census. Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh has expressed support for the demand. His predecessor, N. Biren Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party, had also raised the issue with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, citing concerns about identifying undocumented migrants.
The NRC demand has become particularly contentious because of Manipur's prolonged ethnic conflict. Violence between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023 has caused more than 250 deaths and displaced tens of thousands of people. The conflict has also deepened disagreements over land, political representation, migration and demographic change.
Against this background, supporters of an NRC have argued that undocumented migrants, including people who entered Manipur from neighbouring Myanmar, could otherwise be reflected in official population records. Kuki-Zo organisations, however, have not supported the NRC demand in the same manner as the groups leading the campaign.
It is therefore important to distinguish between the immediate cause of the Census deferment and the broader circumstances surrounding it. The government's decision followed objections to conducting the Census before an NRC, while the objections themselves arose within a State experiencing an unresolved ethnic conflict and continuing security concerns. The deferment can consequently be understood as a decision taken amid the ethnic conflict, with the NRC-before-Census demand providing the immediate political and administrative issue.
The Manipur High Court has also been involved in proceedings concerning the proposed Census exercise, adding a legal dimension to the controversy. The precise timing and form of the eventual Census exercise will depend on subsequent decisions by the Union and State authorities and any applicable judicial orders.
Meanwhile, the NRC prepared in Assam has again come under judicial scrutiny.
On August 26, 2026, Union Home Minister Amit Shah reiterated the central government's position on illegal migration. Speaking at a conference in New Delhi attended by senior officials from security agencies, central armed police forces and State and Union Territory police forces, Shah said that persons entering India illegally would be dealt with under applicable law. There has also been public speculation about a possible broader exercise to identify persons residing in India without authorisation. The precise scope, legal framework and implementation of any such nationwide exercise, however, remain matters requiring official clarification.
The Assam NRC provides the principal precedent for the current debate. The exercise was undertaken pursuant to the Assam Accord and under the supervision of the Supreme Court. A draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018, followed by the publication of the supplementary and final exclusion list on August 31, 2019.
Approximately 19.06 lakh applicants were left out of the published NRC. Exclusion from the list, however, did not by itself establish that a person was a foreign national. Applicants could be excluded for a variety of reasons, including failure to establish eligibility under the prescribed requirements. The 2019 NRC has also not received the formal notification from the Registrar General of India (RGI) that would give it the status of an officially notified final register.
The legal status and accuracy of the Assam NRC have consequently remained contested.
Former Assam NRC State Coordinator Hitesh Devsarma has approached the Supreme Court seeking comprehensive and time-bound verification or re-certification of the NRC. His petition raises allegations of errors and irregularities in the exercise and argues that shortcomings could have implications for national security. The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union government, the Assam government, the NRC State Coordinator and the Registrar General of India.
Devsarma has made a number of specific allegations concerning the preparation and verification of the NRC. These include claims relating to software used during the exercise, the classification of certain applicants as "Original Inhabitants" and the family-tree verification process.
In relation to Kamrup district, for example, Devsarma has alleged that some individuals were classified as Original Inhabitants despite what he says was evidence indicating that they had migrated from Bangladesh. He has also alleged that some applicants who did not satisfy the applicable family-tree matching requirements were nevertheless included in the published NRC.
These claims remain allegations contained in legal proceedings. They have not been established as facts by the Supreme Court, and they should therefore be distinguished from findings made by a competent judicial or investigative authority.
Devsarma has additionally raised questions about alleged external funding and has sought an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). His allegations include claims that improper influence and irregularities may have affected the NRC process. These matters likewise remain subject to verification and judicial consideration.
Another petition before the Supreme Court concerns people whose names appear in the 2019 NRC. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and the All Assam Minority Students' Union have sought the issuance of citizenship certificates to persons included in the register. The litigation raises the broader question of what legal status should be attached to inclusion in the published NRC, particularly given that the list has not been formally notified as the final NRC by the Registrar General of India.
The Assam exercise has also attracted official scrutiny over its financial and administrative management.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its audit of the NRC updating exercise, reported significant financial and procedural irregularities. The original estimated cost of the project was substantially exceeded, with total expenditure reported at approximately ₹1,600 crore. The CAG identified irregularities in areas including payments, procurement and utilisation of funds and recommended that responsibility be fixed for the lapses. It also raised issues involving the system integrator, Wipro Limited, and the management of the project.
Reports of subsequent action by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) have added another layer to the controversy, with alleged financial irregularities in the NRC exercise becoming the subject of investigation. The existence of an investigation, however, should not be interpreted as proof that all allegations under examination have been established.
The Assam experience demonstrates the difficulties involved in combining a large-scale population and citizenship-verification exercise with complex legal, administrative and political questions. The process involved millions of applicants, extensive documentary verification, family-linkage procedures and the assessment of historical records. Its published outcome has remained contested by different sections of Assam's population.
The controversy has also exposed an important distinction between citizenship determination and census enumeration. A census is principally a statistical exercise intended to count and describe a population, whereas an NRC is a citizenship-related register governed by a separate legal and administrative framework. Inclusion or exclusion from one process does not automatically carry the same legal consequences as inclusion or exclusion from the other.
This distinction is particularly relevant in Manipur, where demands for an NRC have become intertwined with the Census and with concerns about migration and demographic change. Supporters of the NRC argue that citizenship verification should precede the enumeration of the population, while opponents and other affected communities have raised concerns about the consequences of such an exercise in an environment already marked by ethnic displacement and political mistrust.
The broader political context has also contributed to renewed attention to illegal migration. The central government's repeated emphasis on identifying and dealing with persons entering India without authorisation has been accompanied by speculation about possible nationwide measures. At present, however, the details and legal scope of any such broader exercise would need to be established through official announcements.
The developments in Manipur and Assam should therefore be viewed as related but distinct matters.
In Manipur, the Census deferment followed organised demands for an NRC before the population-counting exercise and took place amid an unresolved ethnic conflict. In Assam, the issue concerns the status, verification and administration of an NRC that was published in 2019 but has never been formally notified as the final register by the RGI.
Both cases nevertheless raise common questions about migration, citizenship documentation, demographic records, administrative verification and the role of the courts.
For Manipur, the immediate question is when and under what conditions the Census exercise will resume and whether the Union government will agree to an NRC based on the 1951 register. For Assam, the Supreme Court's consideration of petitions concerning the NRC could determine whether further verification or other administrative action is required.
The coming months may therefore bring greater clarity on two closely watched issues in northeastern India: the future of an NRC in Manipur and the legal and administrative status of the NRC already prepared in Assam. For now, both remain subjects of political debate, administrative decision-making and judicial consideration.
---
*Senior journalist based in Guwahati
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor