RUPAJAN BEGUMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                              (2017) 12 S.C.R. 58



A                              RUPAJAN BEGUM
                                        v.
                         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 20858 of2017)
B                             DECEMBER 05, 2017
             [RANJAN GOGOi AND R. F NARIMAN, JJ.]
          Citizenship Act, 1955 - s. 6A - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 -
  Proof of citizenship - Certificate issued by the Secretary of the
c Village   Panchayat in respect of feuwles who have migrated to other
  villages after marriage - High Court held the certificate to be
  invalid - On appeal, held: Certificate issued by GP. Secretary merely·
  acknowledges the shifting of residence of a married woman from
  one village to (mother - Certificate by itself and by no means
  establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate -
D It is only a supporting document - Certificate 011ly enables its holder
  to establish a link between the holder and the person from whom
  legacy is claimed - Certificate issued by the GP. Secretary, by no
  means, is proof of citizenship - Such proof will come only if the link
  between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a
E citizen) is established - Certificate has to be verified at two stages,
  first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and t/1e second is the
  authenticity of the contents thereof - Order of the High Court
  insofar as the invalidity of the certificate, is set aside - Certificates
  would however, be acted upon only to establish a linkage between
  the holder of such certificate and the person from whom legacy is
F being claimed - Certificate will be put to such limited use only if the
  contents of the certificate are found to be established on due and
  proper enquiry and verification.
                          '
            Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
           HELD: 1.1 The invalidation or the certificate issued by the
G   Secretary or the Village Panchayat and countersigned by the local
    revenue official in respect of females who have migrated to other
    villages after marriage or such certificates issued by jurisdictional
    circle officers in respect of urban areas, was an agreed document
    in the niatter of processing of claims for inclusion in the updated
H
                                      58
        RUPAJAN BEGUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        59


NRC has the effect of affecting a large number of claimants who       A
may have filed their applications for inclusion in the NRC. [Para
3 and 10] [61-E-F]
       1.2 It would appear that the list of illustrative documents
including the G.P. Secretary certificate were agreed to by all
stakeholders in the process of updation of the NRC and the same       B
also had the approval of the Union Government as well as the
State Government pursuant" to which instructions were issued to
the district level officers in the matter of issuance of such
certificate in tune with the required protocol. [Para 13] [64-D]
       1.3 The certificate issued by the Secretary merely c
acknowledges the shifting of residence of a married woman from
one village to another. The said certificate by itself and by no
means establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder of the
certificate. This is made clear in the illustrative list of documents
itself by specifying the same to be only a supporting document.
The certificate only enables its holder to establish a link between D
the holder and the person from whom legacy is claimed. It has
been made clear in the several reports of the State Coordinator,
NRC, Assam that a claim accompanied by such a certificate,
without details of the legacy person, is to be discarded and in the
event information as to the legacy person has been furnished, E
the certificate in question is to be used for the limited purpose of
providing a linkage after due enquiry and verification. [Para 15]
[64-G-II; 65-A-B]
        1.4 The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means,
is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between F
the claimant and the legacy person (who   r
                                                has to be a citizen) is
established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The
first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is
the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of
verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of
which the source of information of the facts and all other details G
recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an
opportunity to the holder of the certificate. If the document and
its contents is to be subjected to a thorough search and probe it
cannot be said why the said certificate should have been
interdicted by the High Court, particularly, in the context of the H
60           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017) 12 S.C.R.



A    facts surrounding the enumeration and inclusion of the documents
     mentioned in the illustrative list of documents. In fact, the said
     list of illustrative documents was also laid before this Court in
     the course of the proceedings held from time to time and this
     Court was aware of the nature and effect of each of the documents
     mentioned in the list. The above apart, from a conjoint reading of
B
     the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 i.e. Sections
     19(1)(vi), 21 and 122, it would appear that directions for issuance
     of such certificate can come within the ambit of the jurisdiction of
     the authorities under the Act in which event the view taken by
     the High Court and the contentions advanced on behalf of the
c    State that the said document is a 'private document' would be
     legally fragile. [Para 17] [65-B-C]
           1.5 The order of the High Court insofar as the invalidity of
     the certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary is concerned is set
     aside. The certificates issued by the G.P. Secretary/ Executive
D    Magistrate will however be acted upon only to establish a linkage
     between the holder of such certificate and the person(s) from
     whom legacy is being claimed. The certificate will be put to such
     limited use only if the contents of the certificate are found to be
     established on due and proper enquiry and verification. [Para 18]
     [65-G-H; 66-A]
E
           Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC
           665 : [2005) 1 Suppl. SCR 472 - referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
     [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 472           referred to            Paras
F

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 20858
     of2017.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2017 by the High Court
G    ofGauhati at Guwahati in Writ Petition (C) No. 2634 of2016
                                    WITH
          Civil Appeal Nos. 20862, 20859, 20861, 20860, 20863 and 20864
     of2017
H          Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16441 of2017.
        RUPAJAN BEGUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               61



      Ejaz Maqbool, Fuzail AhmadAyyubi, Abdul Qadir, Varun Mishra,           A
Raju Ramachandran, M. Shoeb Alam, Fauzia Shakil, Syed Burhanur
Rahman, Aminul Islam, Abdul WadudAman, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim
Khan, Satya Mitra, Ad vs for the Appellant.
      Mis. Corporate Law Group, B. Krishna Prasad, Manoj Goel,
Shuvodeep Roy, Naman Kamboj, Debojit Baorkakati, Anurag Pandey,              B
Kunwar R. Ratu, Advs for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      RANJAN GOGOi, J.
      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CCIVIU N0.16441 OF 2017                         C
      I. List the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16441 of 2017
separately.
      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.13256/2017. 13259/
2017. 13260/2017, 13258/2017. 12647/2017. 13257/2017 AND 28935/
2017                                                                         D
      2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13256/
2017, 13259/2017, 13260/2017, 13258/2017, 12647/2017, 13257/2017and
28935/2017'
        3. The challenge in this group of appeals is to an order of the
Gauhati High Court dated 28'h February, 2017 by which document No.xiii       E
(i.e. Certificate issued by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat and
countersigned by the local revenue official in respect of females who
have migrated to other villages after marriage or such certificates issued
by jurisdictional circle officers in respect of urban areas) mentioned in
the 'illustrative list of documents admissible' as a supporting document     F
has been held by the Bigh Court to be invalid in law and hence of no
effect in the process of verification of claims for inclusion in the NRC.
The High Court had passed the aforesaid order in a writ proceeding [i.e.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.2634 of 2016 (Monowara Bewa @ Manora
Bewa Vs. The Union of India & Ors.)] wherein the validity of an order
of the Foreigners Tribunal holding the writ petitioner- Monowara Bew a       G
@ Manora Bewa to be a foreigner was in question. The High Court
found the contentions advanced in the writ petition to be without any
merit and substance and the order of the Tribunal, on the materials before
it, holding the writ petitioner - Monowara Bew a @ Manora Bew a to be
a foreigner to be justified in law.                                          H
62               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017) 12 S.C.R.


A           4. The writ petitioner - Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa in
     support of her claim to be an Indian citizen had additionally laid before
     the High Court a certificate issued by the G(\On Panchayat Secretary of
     the kind noticed above. The High Court could have and, in fact, had
     decided the writ petition on the basis of the materials laid before the
     Tribunal without adverting to the aforesaid certificate and on that basis
B
     could have terminated the proceedings in question. However, the High
     Court took the view that the question of validity of the certificate issued
     by the G.P. Secretary is of considerable public importance and needed a
     resolution. Accordingly, the High Court after dismissing the writ petition
     on merits went on to answer the aforesaid question terming the same to
C    be a "larger issue".
            5. As the opinion of the High Court holding the said certificate to
     be invalid has the potential of affecting a large number of persons who
     were not before the High Court a series of Special Leave Petitions have
     been filed by such persons before this Court challenging the aforesaid
D    part of the orderof the High Court. Leave to file Special Leave Petitions
     has been granted and the grievances raised have been heard.
           6. The Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition filed by
     the aggrieved writ petitioner before the High Court i.e. Monowara Bewa
     @ Manor; Bewa has also been entertained and heard along with the
E    above group of appeals.
            7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
             8. Areading of the order of the High Court would go to show that
     according to the High Court the document in question was a means to
     facilitate a claim for inclusion in the NRC by reference to a document
F    which is post 24'h March, 1971 i.e. cut off date on the basis of which
     citizenship under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is required to
     be determined. The High Court took the view that all the other documents
     listed in the 'illustrative list of documents admissible' are prior to the cut
     off date and, therefore, there cannot be any special reason for inclusion
G    of the said document i.e. contemporaneous G.P. Secretary certificate in
     the said list, even as a supporting document. In this regard, the High
     Court took the view that this Court in Sarbananda Smwwal Vs. Union
     Qflndia has held that the State of Assam is facing "external aggression"
             1



     and "internal disturbance" on account of huge influx of illegal
H    c2005) 5 sec 665
     1
            RUPAJAN BEGUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               63
                      [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

 migrants and keeping in mind the seriousness of the problem the use of          A
the document in question to establish citizenship for inclusion in the updated
NRC cannot commend for acceptance.
       9. The High Court also took the view that under the provisions of
the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 issuance of such certificate is not
contemplated and/or authorized. Referring to the provisions of the Indian        B
Evidence Act, 1872 the High Court was also of the opinion that as the
said certificate is not issued by the G.P. Secretary on the basis of any
official records, the same is not a 'public document' and, in fact, the said
certificate partakes the character of a 'private document' issued by the
G.P. Secretary. The evidentiary value of the same, therefore, is open to
serious doubt. It is on the aforesaid broad basis that the High Court            C
thought it proper to invalidate the certificate in question.
     10. The invalidation of the certificate which was an agreed
document in the matter of processing of claims for inclusion in the updated
NRC undoubtedly has the effect of affecting a large number of claimants
who may have filed their applications for inclusion in the NRC.                  D
        11. It may therefore be nec,essary to very briefly notice the
circumstances in which the illustrative list of documents including the
certificate of the G.P. Secretary appearing at Serial No.13 of the said list
had come into existence.
                                                                                 E
       12. A set of modalities for preparation of the NRC was formulated
by the State Government through a Cabinet sub-committee. The sub-
committee which was initially constituted on 3ni August, 2010 had been
reconstituted from time to time. The modalities were discussed after
several rounds of deliberations with various stakeholders including All
Assam Students' Union ("AASU") and 26 Ethnic Unions as well as All               F
Assam Minorities Students' Union ("AAMSU"). The list of documents
were part of the aforesaid modalities which after being finalized by the
State Government were sent to the Government of India on s•h July,
2013. The approval of the Union Government of the said modalities was
communicated by a letter dated 22•d November, 2014 of the Union Home             G
Secretary addressed to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Assam.
After the aforesaid approval of the Union Home Secretary, the State
Coordinator (NRC) informed the Registrar General of India of the
decision of the Union Government and sought instructions of the said
Authority, i.e., R.G.I. with regard to issuance of such certificates. This
                                                                                 H
64             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A    was communicated by a letter dated 91h April, 2015 of the State
     Coordinator. In response to the said letter, the R.GI. by communication
     dated 51h May, 2015 approved the format of the certificate(s) to be issued
     by the G.P. Secretary/Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, the State
     Coordinator by a communication issued on: the same day i.e. 51h May,
     2015 informed all the Deputy Commissioners of the States of the decision
B
     of the R.G.I. and the approval of the format of the certificates that are to
     be issued by a G.P. Secretary in rural areas and Executive Magistrate in
     the urban areas for married women migrating to a new place on account
     of marriage. The required protocol to be followed in issuing such
     certificates was also communicated by the said letter of the Coordinator
C    dated 5'h May, 2015.
            13. From the above it would appear that the list of illustrative
     documents including the G.P. Secretary certificate were agreed to by all
     stakeholders in the process of updation of the NRC and the same also
     had the approval of the Union Government as well as the State
D    Government pursuant to which instructions were issued to the district
     level officers in the matter of issuance of such certificate in tune with
     the required protocol.
             14. The exercise in question was undertaken by the High Court to
     consider an is: .e not strictly arising in the proceedings before it. Resolution
E    of the issue was not indispensable for answering the writ petitions under
     consideration of the High Court. The issue had the potential of affecting
     the large number of citizens who were not before the High Court. No
     notice under the provisions of Order I rule 8 of the Code of Civil
     Procedure, 1908 was also issued to enable the persons likely to be affected
     to contest the matter in a representative capacity. Though, the order of
F    the High Court insofar as the issue of the validity of the certificate is
     liable to be interdicted on the above basis alone, we are of the view that
     we should proceed further in the matter and record our views on the
     issue of validity of the certificate in question to dispel all doubts in the
     matter and to avoid any further litigation on the issue.
G            15. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary merely
     acknowledges the shifting of residence of a married woman from one
     village to another. The said certificate by itself and by no means establishes
     any claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate. This is made
     clear in the illustrative list of documents itself by specifying the same to
H    be only a supporting document. The certificate in question only enables
           RUPAJAN BEGUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                   65
                     [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

 its holder to establish a link between the holder and the person from              A
 whom legacy is claimed. It has been made clear in the several reports
 of the learned State Coordinator, NRC, Assam that a claim accompanied
 by such a certificate, without details of the legacy person, is to be
 discarded and in the event information as to the legacy person has been
 furnished, the certificate in question is to be used for the limited purpose       B
 of providing a linkage after due enquiry and verification.
          16. The certificate issued by the GP. Secretary, by no means, is
  proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the
  claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established.
  The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the
  authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of     C
  the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an
  exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of
  the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained
  after giving an opportunity to the holderofthe certificate. If the document
  and its contents is to be subjected to a thorough search and probe we do          D
  not see why the said certificate should have been interdicted by the
  High Court, particularly, in the context of the facts surrounding the
  enumeration and inclusion of the documents mentioned in the illustrative
  list of documents, as noticed above. In fact, the said list of illustrative
· documents was also laid before this Court in the course of the proceedings
  held from time to time and this Court was aware of the nature and                 E
  effect of each of the documents mentioned in the list.
       17. The above apart, from a conjoint reading of the.provisions of
 the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 i.e. Sections .19(l)(vi), 21 and 122, it
 would appear that directions for issuance ofsuch certificate can come
 within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act in           F
 which event the view taken by the High Court and the contentions
 advanced on behalf of the State that the said document is a 'private
 document' would be legally fragile.
        18. For all the aforesaid reasons we set aside the order of the
 High Court insofar as the invalidity of the certificate issued by the GP.          G
 Secretary is concerned and allow the present appeals to the above limited
 extent. We make it clear that the certificates issued by the GP. Secretary/
 Executive Magistrate will however be acted upon only to establish a
 linkage between the holder of such certificate and the person(s) from
 whom legacy is being claimed. The certificate will be put to such limited          H
66                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A    use only if the contents of the certificate are found to be established on
     due and proper enquiry and verification.
            19. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
     No.12647 of2017 will now be listed before the appropriate Bench for
     disposal on merits so far as the order of the High Court holding the writ
B    petitioner - appellant (i.e. Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa) to be .a
     foreigner is concerned.


     Nidhi Jain                                             Appeal partly allowed.