Calcutta HC Says Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID Not Conclusive Proof Of Citizenship

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that documents commonly used for identification, including voter ID cards, Aadhaar and Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards, cannot alone establish a person’s Indian citizenship.

Why Did The Court Reject Identity Documents As Citizenship Proof

The observation came while the court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Suman Molla, who challenged the detention of his nephew Nasir. A habeas corpus petition allows a person to approach the court against alleged unlawful detention and seek judicial review of the detention.

A Division Bench hearing the case noted that Nasir was detained on June 18, 2026, under a Ministry of Home Affairs circular dated May 2, 2025. According to the order, an inquiry, interrogation and verification process conducted by authorities had found him to be a Bangladeshi national.

The petitioner claimed that Nasir was an Indian citizen and had been wrongfully detained after his name was removed from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, while an appeal against the deletion was pending.

Molla relied on documents including Nasir’s voter identity card, Aadhaar, and PAN issued by the Income Tax Department, as well as his bank passbook to support his citizenship claim.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that these documents were not sufficient to conclusively establish Indian citizenship. The Bench noted that a voter identity card only indicates enrolment in the electoral roll and does not establish citizenship.

“Voter Identity Card is not a conclusive proof with regard to Indian Citizenship. It is evidence of enrolment of the detainee in the electoral roll,” the court observed.

The court further said that Aadhaar and PAN cards cannot independently establish citizenship. “AADHAAR, cannot by itself be a conclusive proof of Indian citizenship. So also a Permanent Account Number issued by the Income Tax Department. Opening of a bank account, by itself, again is not a proof of Indian citizenship,” the Bench observed.

Court Examines Citizenship Claim And Detention Process

The court also highlighted that when authorities allege that a person is a foreign national, the burden of establishing citizenship lies on the individual concerned. It noted that the petitioner and Nasir were unable to discharge the burden of proof under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

The court observed that under the circular, a detainee is given 60 days to establish Indian citizenship. However, as on the date of the judgment on July 20, 2026, Nasir had failed to produce any document establishing his citizenship.

During the hearing, Nasir claimed that his parents had died in India. The court noted that he was unable to identify where his parents were buried. The Bench observed that the refusal to provide such details led it to draw an adverse inference regarding the claim that his parents were Indian citizens.

The court also examined documents related to Nasir’s family and property records, but observed that they did not conclusively establish his Indian citizenship. After considering the submissions and materials placed before it, the Bench said it was not inclined to interfere with the authorities’ decision, and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.