Context

• The question of what constitutes proof of citizenship lies at the centre of India’s democratic governance.
• The Indian passport and electoral rolls are often viewed as indicators of belonging, yet neither document conclusively proves citizenship, as both can be forged.
• This tension between evidence of status and the status of evidence frames the current debate around the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• The controversy raises deeper questions about how states define and verify membership in a political community.

The Legal Dispute: Institutional Authority and Procedural Limits

• Challenges to the ECI’s SIR rest on three key arguments. The ECI has no legal authority to determine citizenship, a power reserved for the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
• No law permits a nationwide, en masse SIR, and voter roll revisions are meant to be selective.
• Finally, decisions on foreigner status belong to bodies constituted under the Foreigners Act, not the ECI.
• The ECI argues that its constitutional duty to prepare accurate electoral rolls requires verifying an applicant’s citizenship, even if this does not amount to a formal citizenship determination.
• The dispute unsettles a long-standing democratic presumption: that all residents are citizens unless proven otherwise.
• With the burden shifting toward individuals, the nature of the state’s relationship to its people becomes central.

The Quest for a ‘Master Document’ and the Burden of Proof

• India lacks a single document with the legal status of definitive proof of citizenship.
• The Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules, 2003 provide for a National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Identity Cards, but these frameworks remain incomplete.
• The National Population Register (NPR), which lists all residents, is intended to feed into the NRC, which includes only those who have proven their citizenship.
• A critical principle governs this regime: when citizenship is questioned, the burden of proof rests on the individual, not the state.
• Past exercises, such as the 2010 NPR and the 2008 Multipurpose National Identity Card pilot, reflect efforts to build comprehensive identification systems.
• Political hesitation remains evident, particularly as the NRC disappeared from the 2024 election manifesto.
• The interplay between policy ambition and political caution continues to shape India’s approach to documenting citizenship.

Evolving Conceptions of Indian Citizenship

• India’s early citizenship framework leaned toward jus soli or birth-based citizenship.
• Over time, elements of descent-based citizenship (jus sanguinis) grew stronger, introducing multiple caveats to citizenship by birth.
  • Those born before July 1, 1987 are citizens by birth without condition.
  • Between 1987 and 2004, one parent must be a citizen.
  • After December 3, 2004, one parent must be a citizen and the other must not be an illegal migrant.
• The 2003 amendments introduced the category of illegal immigrant, excluding such persons and their children from birth-based citizenship.
• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 further altered the landscape by introducing a religion-based path to citizenship, marking a significant shift in the principles governing membership in the national community.

Who Determines Citizenship? The Administrative Paradox

• A fundamental paradox sits at the heart of citizenship governance: while a democracy derives legitimacy from the people, the state controls the mechanisms that define who the people are.
• In practice, citizenship determinations are made by frontline officials, clerks, constables, border agents, and local administrators, whose decisions shape political inclusion and exclusion.
• Whether conducted under the ECI or the MHA, exercises such as SIR, NPR, or NRC rely on the same local bureaucracy.
• Institutional location does not resolve the deeper contradiction, for the state retains authority to determine membership in the very polity that legitimises it.

Assam: A Case Study in Bureaucratised Citizenship

• Assam offers the only example of a completed draft NRC, created under Section 6A following the Assam Accord.
• The 2019 draft identified 19 lakh individuals as D-voters or doubtful citizens, based on their inability to establish lineage or residency beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reliance on decades-old legacy documents placed immense burdens on individuals, and political reactions intensified when large numbers of excluded individuals were found to be Hindus.
• Being marked a D-voter can result in loss of voting rights, proceedings before Foreigners Tribunals, and potential deportation.
• Assam demonstrates the human and administrative complexity inherent in large-scale citizenship verification.

The Democratic Dilemma

• Efforts to verify citizenship reveal a core democratic tension: a democracy presupposes that people create the state, yet the state decides who counts as the people.
• With individuals bearing the burden of proof and the state exercising decisive authority, the balance between administrative control and democratic inclusion remains fragile.
• Without resolving this paradox, initiatives such as SIR, NPR, or NRC will continue to shape anxieties over identity, belonging, and the meaning of citizenship in India.

Conclusion

• India’s ongoing contestation over citizenship verification sits at the intersection of law, politics, and philosophy.
• While administrative accuracy in electoral rolls is essential, the mechanisms used to determine citizenship must balance state interests with constitutional guarantees of fairness, transparency, and democratic inclusion.
• The unresolved question remains: how can a democratic state verify its citizenry without undermining the very principle that the people precede and authorise the state?