In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India recently announced its decision to review a critical petition. This petition argues that Foreigners Tribunals in Assam are applying an ‘incorrect standard of proof’ by compelling vulnerable women—many of whom are illiterate, economically marginalized, marry young, and live in rural areas—to produce documentary evidence of their parents’ information and their own birth to establish Indian citizenship.
A judicial panel led by Justice Surya Kant has issued official notices to the Union government, the State of Assam, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and other relevant authorities. This action stems from a petition filed by Meherunnessa, who is contesting a Gauhati High Court judgment. The High Court had upheld a Foreigners Tribunal’s decision that declared her a foreigner, claiming she entered Assam after the crucial cut-off date of March 25, 1971, as stipulated by Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
The petition powerfully asserts that such an ‘exclusionary and discriminatory legal position’ profoundly impacts illiterate, marginalized, and rural women. It argues that this constitutes ‘indirect discrimination,’ which is strictly forbidden under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing equality and protection from discrimination.
The High Court’s 2019 ruling stated that the woman, now in her mid-fifties, ‘failed to provide proof of the most crucial aspect: establishing linkage to her projected parents and/or grandfather.’ This lack of documentary evidence was deemed a failure to prove her citizenship.
Meherunnessa, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocates Rupali Samuel and Yash S. Vijay, argued that interpreting the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, to exclude oral evidence would push vulnerable women like her further into a state of statelessness and de-nationalization.
Her petition highlights that she was born in 1969 in Mazdia village, Barpeta district, Assam, making her an Indian citizen by birth according to Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act. She emphasized that her family has resided in Assam for ‘time immemorial,’ with her father and grandfather’s names appearing in the 1951 National Register of Citizens. She also presented a land purchase document from March 1956 in her paternal uncle’s name, and her family members were listed in electoral rolls maintained by the Election Commission of India. Furthermore, she affirmed under oath that her ‘grandparents, parents or any other family member, have never visited any foreign country, including Bangladesh.’
Meherunnessa explained that both she and her children have been rendered ‘stateless.’ This happened after a certificate from the gaon panchayat secretary of Mazdia village was rejected, and the testimonies of her brother, Hamid Khan, and paternal uncle, Muslem Khan, were dismissed as unreliable or inadmissible. She contends that the lower courts focused on ‘minor inconsistencies’ in the spellings of her parents’ names in official records to invalidate her citizenship claim.
The petition strongly argues that the High Court erred by relying solely on documentary evidence to establish her familial link to her parents. It underscores that both the Evidence Act, 1872, and the newer Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, explicitly recognize oral evidence as admissible and relevant for proving relationships between individuals. Additionally, it highlights that the High Court failed to adequately consider the petitioner’s challenging socio-economic background when evaluating the evidence presented in her case.
The petition further elaborated on the systemic challenges, stating, ‘The petitioner, like many other women, has faced severe hardship in producing documentary proof of her parental information and birth. Unfortunately, her circumstances were not unusual for most women in India in the 1960s-80s… Gender-based stereotypes in society have historically and customarily excluded women from education, land rights, and participation in public life in Assam, a situation mirrored in other parts of India and globally.’
It also pointed out that a significant number of women in Assam were married before reaching 18 years of age and before completing their schooling. These women often relocated to their husband’s homes, making it difficult for them to have their names included in voters’ lists alongside their parental families or to possess educational certificates. This issue is particularly relevant given that Assam is one of 12 states with child marriage rates higher than the national average, as highlighted by the India Child Marriage and Teenage Pregnancy Report by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.