Can the term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” create a superior class of citizens during the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. This case clarifies that the NRC is solely based on citizenship, not on whether someone is an original inhabitant of Assam. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Case Background
Several writ petitions were filed seeking clarification on the meaning of “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam”. This term is used in Clause 3(3) of the Schedule of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. The petitioners were concerned that this clause might create a superior class of citizens. They feared that those identified as original inhabitants would receive preferential treatment in education and employment.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003 | The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 were enacted. |
| 2017 | Writ petitions were filed seeking clarification on the term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam”. |
| December 5, 2017 | The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment. |
Legal Framework
The core of the issue revolves around Clause 3(3) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. This clause states:
“The names of persons who are originally inhabitants of the State of Assam and their children and descendants, who are Citizens of India, shall be included in the consolidated list if the citizenship of such persons is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the registering authority;”
This clause is an exception to the general process for inclusion in the National Register of Citizens (NRC). It provides a less strict process for those who are originally inhabitants of Assam. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this does not grant any special entitlements or benefits.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the process of identifying “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” could lead to a superior class of citizens. They were concerned that this classification might affect opportunities for education and employment. The petitioners also sought directions on how to identify such persons.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the NRC is solely based on citizenship. Being an original inhabitant of Assam does not provide any special advantage. All citizens, whether original inhabitants or not, are treated equally for inclusion in the NRC.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:
- How should the expression “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” be understood in Clause 3(3) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Meaning of “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” | The Court clarified that this term does not create a superior class of citizens. The NRC is based solely on citizenship. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily focused on interpreting the specific clause within the Citizenship Rules.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| Clause 3(3) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 | The Court interpreted this clause to clarify that it does not create a superior class of citizens. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” creates a superior class of citizens. | The Court rejected this submission, clarifying that the NRC is solely based on citizenship. |
| The process of identifying “originally inhabitants” may lead to preferential treatment. | The Court clarified that the identification does not confer any special entitlement or benefit. |
The Supreme Court held that the term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” does not create a superior class of citizens. The sole criterion for inclusion in the NRC is citizenship under the Constitution of India and the Citizenship Act. The Court emphasized that both original inhabitants and non-original inhabitants are treated equally for inclusion in the NRC.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s primary concern was to ensure that the NRC process is fair and does not create any artificial hierarchies among citizens. The court emphasized that the NRC is a citizenship verification process and not a determination of who is an original inhabitant of Assam. The court’s reasoning focused on:
- Ensuring equal treatment of all citizens.
- Clarifying that the NRC is based on citizenship alone.
- Preventing any misinterpretations of Clause 3(3).
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Ensuring equal treatment of all citizens | 40% |
| Clarifying that the NRC is based on citizenship alone | 35% |
| Preventing any misinterpretations of Clause 3(3) | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Interpretation of “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” in Clause 3(3) of the Schedule to the Citizenship Rules, 2003.
Petitioners’ Argument: The term might create a superior class of citizens with preferential treatment.
Court’s Analysis: Clause 3(3) is an exception to the general NRC process but does not grant any special entitlements.
Court’s Conclusion: The NRC is based solely on citizenship. Being an original inhabitant does not confer any special advantage.
Key Takeaways
- The term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” does not create a superior class of citizens for the NRC.
- The sole criterion for inclusion in the NRC is citizenship under the Constitution and the Citizenship Act.
- All citizens, whether original inhabitants or not, are treated equally in the NRC process.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment. The court clarified the meaning of the term and dismissed the writ petitions and interlocutory applications.
Development of Law
This judgment clarifies that the NRC process is based solely on citizenship and that no other criteria, such as being an original inhabitant of a particular state, can be used to create a superior class of citizens. This is a reaffirmation of the principle of equality before the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha vs. Union of India clarifies that the term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” does not create a superior class of citizens in the NRC process. The NRC is based solely on citizenship, ensuring equal treatment for all.