Bombay High Court ruled that documents like Aadhaar, PAN, or voter ID are only for identification and do not prove Indian citizenship, stressing the Citizenship Act as the main law on nationality.
Mumbai: On August 12, the Bombay High Court has made it clear that having documents like an Aadhaar card, PAN card, or voter ID does not automatically make someone a citizen of India. The court said these papers are only for identification and to get services, but they cannot replace the main rules about citizenship that are written in the Citizenship Act.
The case involved a man named Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, who is accused of being a Bangladeshi national living in India for more than ten years without a valid passport or travel documents.
He is also accused of getting fake Indian documents like an Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID, and even an Indian passport.
While hearing the bail plea, Justice Amit Borkar said,
“In my opinion, the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired and in what situations it can be lost.”
He added,
“Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Citizenship Act.”
Justice Borkar explained that Parliament passed the Citizenship Act in 1955 to create a complete and permanent system for deciding who can be a citizen of India. The law clearly separates lawful citizens from illegal migrants.
The court said,
“This distinction is important because it protects the sovereignty of the country and ensures that benefits and rights meant for citizens are not wrongfully taken by those who have no legal status to stay in India.”
In this case, the bench refused to grant bail to Sardar because the verification of his documents is still going on and the investigation is not yet complete.
The police told the court they fear he might run away if granted bail. The court agreed, saying this was a genuine concern.
The High Court pointed out that the allegations are serious. It is not just about living in India without permission but also about making and using fake identity papers to pretend to be an Indian citizen.
Sardar has been charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Passport (Entry to India) Act, and the Foreigners Order.
The court noted that the Aadhaar card in question is still being checked for authenticity by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Sardar, in his defense, claimed that he is a true Indian citizen and that there is no proof to show he is from Bangladesh.
He said his documents are linked with his income tax records and his business registration and that he has been living in Thane, near Mumbai, since 2013.
The prosecution opposed the bail, saying that if Sardar was released, he might escape. They also told the court they were investigating whether there is a bigger network behind illegal immigration and fake identity creation.
The bench observed that the case is not just about a minor breach of immigration laws. It appears to be a case of deliberate hiding of real identity and creating false documents to take benefits meant for Indian citizens.
The court also reflected on the time when the Constitution of India was being made. It said the country had just gone through partition, which led to a large movement of people across borders.
This situation made it necessary to decide who would be accepted as citizens of the new nation.
The High Court said the makers of the Constitution, keeping this in mind, created special arrangements to decide citizenship at the start of the Republic. It further said that the Constitution gave immediate clarity on who would be treated as a citizen and gave Parliament the power to make future citizenship laws.
The bench also stressed the need for verification by concerned government authorities that could conclusively establish whether Sardar was indeed an Indian citizen.
The court observed,
“Merely relying on the existence of certain identity documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID, without verification of the process through which these were obtained, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship at this stage, particularly when the very authenticity of such documents is under investigation.”
However, the High Court provided a limited relief, noting that the accused could renew his bail request if the trial was not concluded within one year.
According to the prosecution, Sardar entered India without valid travel documents, concealed his foreign nationality, and obtained forged Aadhaar and PAN cards.
During the search, police recovered a mobile phone that contained digital copies of birth certificates belonging to him and his mother, allegedly issued in Bangladesh. Investigations also showed that he had been in frequent communication with multiple phone numbers linked to Bangladesh.
The prosecution informed the court that the verification of Sardar’s Aadhaar card with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was still pending. They also expressed concern that he might be involved in a larger organised network engaged in illegal immigration and identity fraud.
Sardar, however, maintained that he was a genuine Indian citizen holding valid government-issued documents.
He claimed that the birth certificate found on his phone was unverified, sent via WhatsApp from an unknown number, and insisted that his continued custody was unnecessary as there was nothing more to recover from him.
Rejecting this argument, the court said the allegations went far beyond a minor immigration violation.
They suggested deliberate concealment of identity and the creation of forged documents to unlawfully enjoy the benefits of Indian citizenship. The bench emphasised that the digital evidence, such as the birth certificates on his phone, could not be ignored and warranted deeper investigation.
Accepting the prosecution’s concerns about the possibility of Sardar fleeing the legal process, the court remarked,
“This Court believes that the fear expressed by the prosecution is not an empty or imaginary fear. It is supported by the applicant’s alleged past actions and the serious nature of the accusations. The danger of the applicant running away from the law or interfering with the investigation is real, and for this reason also, this is not a case where bail should be granted at this stage.”
Advocate Jyotiram S. Yadav represented Sardar, while Additional Public Prosecutor Megha Bajoria appeared for the State.
Case Title:
Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar v The State of Maharashtra
Read Order:
READ MORE INFORMATION ON ILLEGAL MIGRANTS
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
