Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1148

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Rupajan Begum – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.20858 of 2017 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13256 of 2017) With Civil Appeal No. 20862 of 2017 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13259 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 20859 of 2017 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13260 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 20861 of 2017 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13258 of 2017], Civil Appeal No.20860 of 2017 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12647 of 2017], Civil Appeal No.20863 of 2017 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13257 of 2017], Civil Appeal No.20864 of 2017 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28935 of 2017], Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16441 of 2017.
Decided On : 05-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- Ejaz Maqbool, Adv.
For the Respondent:- B. Krishna Prasad, Anurag Pandey, Shuvodeep Roy, Shuvodeep Roy, Shuvodeep Roy, Corporate Law Group, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Superior Courts should avoid resolving such issue which are not indispensable for answering writ petitions under consideration.
Certificate issued by GP Secretary merely acknowledges shifting of residence of a married woman from one village to another. The certificate by itself and by no means establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – High Court deliberating and deciding an issue not strictly arising in the proceedings – Resolution of such issue not indispensable for answering writ petitions under consideration – No notice issued under Order I rule 8, CPC to persons likely to be affected by the decision – Not proper. (Para 14)
       (b) National Register of Citizens – Inclusion of names in – Illustrative list of admissible documents – Certificate issued by GP Secretary – Validity – Certificate merely acknowledges shifting of residence of a married woman from one village to another – It is only a supporting document – The certificate by itself and by no means establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder – Such certificate and its contents, if produced in support of claim of citizenship, is subjected to thorough search and probe – High Court went wrong in interdicting it. (Para 15, 16)
       (c) Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 – Sections 19(1) (vi), 21 and 122 – Directions for issuance of the certificate in question – Coming within ambit of jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act – Cannot be termed ‘private document’ – Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 17)
       Facts of the case:
       The challenge in this group of appeals is to an order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28th February, 2017 by which document No.xiii (i.e. Certificate issued by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat and countersigned by the local revenue official in respect of females who have migrated to other villages after marriage or such certificates issued by jurisdictional circle officers in respect of urban areas) mentioned in the 'illustrative list of documents admissible' as a supporting document has been held by the High Court to be invalid in law and hence of no effect in the process of verification of claims for inclusion in the NRC.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16441 of 2017

1. List the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16441 of 2017 separately.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.13256/2017, 13259/2017, 13260/2017, 13258/2017, 12647/2017, 13257/2017 AND 28935/2017.

2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13256/2017, 13259/2017, 13260/2017, 13258/2017, 12647/2017, 13257/2017 and 28935/2017.

3. The challenge in this group of appeals is to an order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28th February, 2017 by which document No.xiii (i.e. Certificate issued by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat and countersigned by the local revenue official in respect of females who have migrated to other villages after marriage or such certificates issued by jurisdictional circle officers in respect of urban areas) mentioned in the 'illustrative list of documents admissible' as a supporting document has been held by the High Court to be invalid in law and hence of no effect in the process of verification of claims for inclusion in the NRC. The High Court had passed the aforesaid order in a writ proceeding [i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.2634 of 2016 (Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa v. The Union of India & Ors.)] wherein the validity of an order of the Foreigners Tribunal holding the writ petitioner - Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa to be a foreigner was in question. The High Court found the contentions advanced in the writ petition to be without any merit and substance and the order of the Tribunal, on the materials before it, holding the writ petitioner - Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa to be a foreigner to be justified in law.

4. The writ petitioner - Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa in support of her claim to be an Indian citizen had additionally laid before the High Court a certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary of the kind noticed above. The High Court could have and, in fact, had decided the writ petition on the basis of the materials laid before the Tribunal without adverting to the aforesaid certificate and on that basis could have terminated the proceedings in question. However, the High Court took the view that the question of validity of the certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary is of considerable public importance and needed a resolution. Accordingly, the High Court after dismissing the writ petition on merits went on to answer the aforesaid question terming the same to be a "larger issue".

5. As the opinion of the High Court holding the said certificate to be invalid has the potential of affecting a large number of persons who were not before the High Court a series of Special Leave Petitions have been filed by such persons before this Court challenging the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court. Leave to file Special Leave Petitions has been granted and the grievances raised have been heard.

6. The Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition filed by the aggrieved writ petitioner before the High Court i.e. Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa has also been entertained and heard along with the above group of appeals.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. A reading of the order of the High Court would go to show that according to the High Court the document in question was a means to facilitate a claim for inclusion in the NRC by reference to a document which is post 24th March, 1971 i.e. cut off date on the basis of which citizenship under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is required to be determined. The High Court took the view that all the other documents listed in the 'illustrative list of documents admissible' are prior to the cut off date and, therefore, there cannot be any special reason for inclusion of the said document i.e. contemporaneous G.P. Secretary certificate in the said list, even as a supporting document. In this regard, the High Court took the view that this Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 has held that the State of Assam is facing "external aggression

Click Here to Read the rest of this document