NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court

"NRC legacy data, besides being inadmissible evidence, is a computer generated statement and therefore, the provision of Sub- Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 would be applicable." Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment dated June 30, 2026, has held that computer-generated NRC legacy data extracts lack evidentiary value in citizenship proceedings unless they are supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

A bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan observed that the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act remains squarely on the proceedee to establish their lineage through admissible documentary evidence rather than mere oral testimony.

The petitioner, Aminul Hoque, moved the High Court challenging an opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Kamrup (M), which had declared him a foreigner of the post-1971 stream. Hoque claimed to be an Indian citizen by birth, asserting that his father and grandfather were residents of Goalpara district and were recorded in the 1951 NRC. He produced several voter lists from 1966 to 2017 and a school certificate to establish his link to his projected ancestors, which the Tribunal had discarded due to discrepancies in names, ages, and residential locations.

The primary question before the court was whether computer-generated NRC extracts and legacy data could be admitted as evidence without the mandatory certification required for electronic records. The court was also called upon to determine if PAN cards, EPICs, and oral testimonies of family members are sufficient to discharge the burden of proof regarding citizenship when documentary links are inconsistent.

NRC Legacy Data and Electronic Records Certification

The court meticulously examined the admissibility of NRC extracts, noting that they are essentially computer-generated printouts. The bench emphasized that the manner and mode of proving electronic records are strictly governed by statutory requirements.

Mandatory Requirement of Section 65B Certificate

The court observed that without a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), such documents have no evidentiary value. It noted that the petitioner admitted the NRC documents were computer-generated printouts, making the ratio of Ahitan Nessa v. Union of India squarely applicable.

"The Courts and Tribunals cannot start accepting downloaded copies as admissible evidence without complying with the statutory requirement of manner and mode of proving an electronic record."

Inadmissibility of Census Records Under the Census Act

Referencing the case of Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali v. Union of India, the court reiterated that NRC extracts produced to prove domicile are inadmissible. It further noted that the NRC of 1951 was prepared under the Census Act, 1948, and under Section 15 of the said Act, census records are neither open to inspection nor admissible in evidence.

Status of PAN Cards and EPIC as Proof of Citizenship

The petitioner had relied heavily on his PAN Card and Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) to assert his status. However, the court dismissed these as conclusive proof, noting that such documents are often issued based on self-declarations.

PAN Cards Issued on Self-Declaration

The bench held that it is well-settled that a PAN Card and EPIC are not proof of citizenship. It observed that since a PAN Card is issued based on an individual's self-declaration, the petitioner ought to have called for relevant records from the Income Tax Office to prove the veracity of the entries if he intended to rely on them.

"PAN Card and EPIC are not a valid piece of evidence in absence of supporting evidence and in any case, they are post-reference documents."

Discrepancies in Voter Lists and Family Linkage

The court found significant fault in the petitioner's documentary trail, specifically regarding the shifting of the family between three different villages—Dobakura, Ghugudoba, and Hashdoba. The bench noted that there was no documentary evidence to support the claim that the family moved due to river erosion or partition.

Inconsistency Prevents Establishment of Family Identity

The court observed that while minor spelling mistakes can be disregarded, major variations in age and the lack of consistent family members across different voter lists are fatal to a citizenship claim. It noted that in one list, the petitioner’s mother’s age appeared to increase by only four years over a ten-year period, while in another, a different wife was recorded for his projected uncle.

"The petitioner has failed to show that all the projected members of the family were continuously together in all the voters lists of the three villages."

Limitations of Oral Testimony in Citizenship Cases

Addressing the petitioner’s argument that his father had deposed as a witness (DW-2) to confirm their relationship, the court held that oral testimony cannot substitute for the lack of a clear documentary link.

Documentary Evidence Must Prevail Over Oral Statements

Citing Basiron Nessa v. Union of India, the bench held that citizenship must be proved through record-based evidence. It noted that the mere filing of a written statement and oral testimony is insufficient under the Foreigners Act, as the facts-in-issue must be proved through admissible and relevant documents that establish a clear lineage.

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction and Certiorari

Finally, the court addressed the limits of its own power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that a High Court does not sit as an appellate tribunal over the findings of a Foreigners Tribunal.

High Court Cannot Re-weigh Evidence

The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, stating that a writ of certiorari is intended to demolish orders without jurisdiction or those that are palpably erroneous. It cannot be used to substitute the court’s view for that of the inferior tribunal simply because another conclusion is possible.

"A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking or to correct a mere wrong decision."

The High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to show any perversity or patent error in the Tribunal's opinion. Holding that the exhibited documents did not establish a link between the petitioner and his projected ancestors, the court dismissed the writ petition. The bench directed the Registry to return the Tribunal's records and ordered the communication of the judgment to the relevant authorities for further action.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2026