Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579
Read the judgement here.
Date of the decision: 05.12.2017
Court: Supreme Court
Judges: Justice Ranjan Gogoi (authoring) and Justice R.F. Nariman
Summary: The Supreme Court overturned Gauhati High Court’s decision of interdicting Gram Panchayat certificates and clarified that the residentship certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat are ‘public documents’. The same are valid in law as supporting documents only to establish a linkage between the holder of such a certificate and the person(s) from whom legacy is being claimed.
Facts: This case came before the Supreme Court as a group of appeals to the Gauhati High Court’s order in Manowara Bewa v. Union of India. In the said case, the High Court had considered the question of the validity of the Gram Panchayat/Executive Magistrate certificates as a “larger issue” and delivered an opinion on the same after dismissing the writ petition. Subsequently, it invalidated the Gram Panchayat (“GP”) certificate as a supporting document even though it appeared in the ‘illustrative list of documents admissible in the 2019 NRC’. The High Court order had consequently negated the effect of such certificates in processing claims for inclusion in the 2019 NRC.
The High Court viewed the aforesaid certificate “as a means to facilitate a claim for inclusion in the NRC” (paragraph 8) by reference to a contemporaneous document. This document has been issued after the cutoff date of 24.03.1971, unlike the other documents in the illustrative list. Citing Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, the High Court took the view that in light of the serious problem of “external aggression,” the issuance of such certificates is contrary to national interest. Further, the High Court stated that under the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the issuance of such certificates is not contemplated and/or authorised. It was also of the opinion that the said certificate is not a ‘public document’ but has the character of a ‘private document,’ making the evidentiary value of the same open to serious doubt.
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement in so far as the validity of the Gram Panchayat certificate was concerned. The Supreme Court observed that the resolution of the validity of the Gram Panchayat Certificate by the High Court was not essential as it had not relied on the Gram Panchayat certificate in adjudicating upon the writ petition. Further, the Supreme Court noted that although the High Court’s verdict had the potential of affecting a large number of citizens who were not before the Court, “no notice under the provisions of Order I rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also issued to enable the persons likely to be affected to contest the matter in a representative capacity” (paragraph 14).
Additionally, the Supreme Court held that questioning the validity of the Gram Panchayat certificates was legally untenable. Firstly, it observed that such certificates were agreed to by all stakeholders in the process of updation of the NRC and approved by the State and Union Governments. A set of modalities for preparation of the NRC was formulated by the State Government through a Cabinet sub-committee, which approved the format in which such certificates were to be issued. In addition, it stated that a conjoint reading of Sections 19(1)(vi), 21 and 122 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, shows that the authorities under the Act are authorised to issue such certificates, making them valid public documents.
Clarifying the evidentiary value of the Gram Panchayat certificate, the Supreme Court stated that such certificate is a supporting document and it “merely acknowledges the shifting of residence of a married woman from one village to another” (paragraph 15). It is not proof of citizenship. It has been made clear in the several reports of the learned State Coordinator, NRC, Assam that a claim accompanied by such a certificate, without details of the legacy person, is to be discarded. In effect, such certificates are used to prove linkage only in addition to other documents providing details of the legacy.
Even for this limited purpose, they are subjected to verification at two stages—first, authenticity of the certificate itself; and second, authenticity of the contents thereof. This exhaustive verification gives the holder of the certificate an opportunity to present evidence to ascertain the source of the information provided therein. The Court opined that after a thorough probe of the contents of the certificate, it does not stand to be discarded.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court of India held that the certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat Secretary/Executive Magistrate will be acted upon only to establish a linkage between the holder of such a certificate and the person(s) from whom legacy is being claimed. The certificate can be relied upon only if the contents of the certificate are found to be established on due and proper enquiry and verification.
Significance: This judgement is significant as it correctly affirms that a Gaon Panchayat/Executive Magistrate certificate is a supporting document to be used for establishing linkage between the holder of such certificate and the person from whom legacy is being claimed. It has rightly stated that the Gaon Panchayat/Executive Magistrate certificate is a public document.
This certificate is an important document as it helps women establish a linkage with their parents. Most of these women are from under-developed rural areas, have not been through formal schooling and are married off at an early age. Thus, acquiring valid documentation linking them to their fathers is a major challenge for them. Since husbands are the guardians of married women, most documents are rendered redundant in establishing legacy and citizenship. The said certificate usually bears the following details: the name of the woman, names of her mother and father, her place of residence, the timeline of her wedding, name of her husband and her new place of residence. It essentially acknowledges the shifting of residence of a married woman from one village to another, thereby filling a crucial gap in establishing legacy.
The judgement is also significant because the Supreme Court held the High Court accountable for not issuing notice to enable the persons likely to be affected to contest the matter in a representative capacity. There are basically four essential conditions for a party to institute a representative suit which can be derived from the provision of Rule 8, they are: (i) The parties are numerous; (ii) Same interest or Community of interest; (iii) Necessary permission of the Court has been obtained and (iv) Notice to all the persons interested in the suit. The issue of the Gram Panchayat Secretary certificate was likely to affect a sizeable population of women as admitted by the High Court itself and its failure to give notice for the same would have been detrimental to their citizenship.
The Supreme Court also stated that the reference to the Gram Panchayat certificate in the said case was not necessary, tacitly indicating to the High Court to stick to the matter at hand. The Supreme Court has, in earlier cases, held that a question that arose from the pleadings but not the subject matter of an issue cannot be decided by the court.
Here, it would be pertinent to point to certain confusion that the judgement casts. In the Manowara Bewa case, it is specifically stated that its judgement does not deal with the use of Gram Panchayat certificates in the NRC process (paragraphs 53 and 59). It appears that the the judgement generally examines the evidentiary value of these certificate in the context of proceedings before the Foreigner Tribunals. In Rupajan Begum, however, the Court the validity and role of Gram Panchayat certificate in the context of NRC inclusion process; the judgement does not examine the effect of its ratio in Foreigner Tribunal proceedings. However, this judgement has been favourably cited in various FT cases in support of the evidentiary value of the said certificate.
Table of Authorities:
Manowara Bewa v. The Union of India & Ors, WP(C) 2634/2016.
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, WP(C) 131/2000.
Resources:
Trisha Sabhapandit and Padmini Baruah, ‘Untrustworthy and Unbelievable- Women and the quest of citizenship in Assam’ (2021) 3(1) Statelessness and Citizenship Review 236.
Shruti Naik and Leah Verghese, ‘Caught in a bureaucratic web’ The Hindu (5 March 2020).
Prachi Bhardwaj, “Gram Panchayat Certificate not a ‘private document’, Can be used to establish legacy linkage” (SCC Online Blog, 5 December 2017).
Ananya Singh, “Women Worst Victims of NRC: Gendered and Discriminatory Nature of the Register Revealed” The Citizen is Hopeful (New Delhi, 29 November 2019).
Tora Agarwala, ‘Explained: Which papers really work as proof of citizenship in Assam?’ The Indian Express (Guwahati, 29 February 2020).
This case note is part of Parichay’s ongoing project to study, track, and publish key propositions and the latest developments in citizenship law and adjudication in India. This note was prepared by Rhydhi Gupta.