GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has asked a man to apply for citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) after he was declared “foreigner” by a Foreigner’s Tribunal.
After hearing a writ petition filed by the individual, Bablu Paul alias Sujit Paul of Assam’s Karimganj district, a High Court bench, comprising Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Malasri Nandi, set aside the May 8, 2017 order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-II, Karimganj.
Paul, who migrated from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) illegally, had challenged the Tribunal’s order on the grounds that when he, as a two-year-old, had entered India along with his father Boloram Paul and grandfather Chintaharan Paul on September 30, 1964, they were given refugee status by the Government of India as clearly evident from a certificate which the Government of West Bengal had issued.
The petitioner said his grandfather soon settled in Assam and the latter’s name appeared in the voters’ list of 1966. It was submitted that since the petitioner’s grandfather was an Indian citizen by virtue of casting votes since 1966, the petitioner should be treated as Indian.
The Tribunal, however, argued that even if the petitioner had migrated in 1964, he was born in East Pakistan and came to Karimganj in 1984.
Further, upon finding certain discrepancies in the records regarding the petitioner’s grandfather, father, and mother, the Tribunal took the view that these documents were collusively obtained and declared him an illegal immigrant who entered India after March 25, 1971.
The High Court bench did not dispute that the document was issued by the West Bengal government on October 7, 1964, to the members of the minority community of East Pakistan who had migrated during that period and that the petitioner had entered India sometime in 1964 along with his father and grandfather.
“…We are not in agreement with the learned Tribunal that the petitioner had obtained the documents collusively…and with its declaration that the petitioner is a foreigner who came to India illegally from Bangladesh on or after 25.03.1971,” the bench said.
“…We are also unable to declare him an Indian as claimed by him, for he was not born in this country,” the bench further said.
Under Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a person entering India before January 1, 1966 can be deemed to be a citizen provided s/he enters Assam from the specified territory (East Pakistan/Bangladesh) and has been ordinarily residing in Assam after the date of entry, the bench said.
“As regards persons who entered India (Assam) between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, such persons can get the benefit of citizenship, if they register themselves before the competent registering authority and those who entered after 25.03.1971, they will be declared as foreigners,” it said.
The bench ruled that since the petitioner did not enter from the specified territory in Assam, but West Bengal, and also as he has not been shown to be a resident of Assam ordinarily after his date of entry in 1964, he cannot get the benefit of deemed citizenship.
The bench pointed out the CAA provides that “any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as an illegal migrant”.
In the light of this, the bench set aside the Tribunal’s impugned order and directed the petitioner to make an application for registration as a citizen of India under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 immediately, before the competent authority.
The competent authority on receipt of such an application will pass appropriate orders regarding citizenship of the petitioner, the bench ruled.
It made it clear that till consideration of such an application that may be filed by the petitioner, he should not be subjected to any coercive action by the State/authorities.