Confusion over the status of Assam NRC

the story So Far: On May 10, a member of one of the functional 100 Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) of Assam had written to Hitesh Dev Sarma, the state coordinator of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), asking them to stop interfering in the legitimate functioning of the tribunals. The letter was in response to Mr Sarma’s April 18 letter asking all FT members not to consider the NRC “final” considering the nationality of a person suspected of being a non-citizen.

What is NRC and when was it started?

The NRC was born out of the first census of independent India in 1951, which involved the transfer of data from census slips. All the states were mandated to compile an NRC but this was done only in Assam. The intention behind one such exercise in Assam was to draw up a village-based list of residents given the resistance of the state – then undivided – to house post-Partition refugees. The fear of increasing numbers of indigenous people by “illegal immigrants” during and after the Bangladesh War of 1971 led to the Assam Movement from 1979 to 1985. The demand for updating the 1951 NRC to drive out foreigners from Assam was raised during the agitation.

Why did the Supreme Court not implement the NRC in Assam? , in focus podcast

The movement ended with the signing of the Assam Accord in August 1985. The agreement set March 24, 1971, on the eve of the Bangladesh War, as the cut-off date for the detection, detention and deportation of foreigners. This date was included in the NRC updating process that began in 2014 under the supervision of the Supreme Court. The people listed in the 1951 NRC and their descendants were included in the complete NRC draft published on August 31, 2019, relatively smoothly. Of the 3.3 crore people who applied to be included in this draft, 19.06 lakh were excluded.

What was the trigger of the debate on its status?

In 2021, Mr Sarma submitted an affidavit in the Gauhati High Court, referring to the August 2019 NRC as “supplementary list” and not as “final NRC” and sought re-verification. In September that year, an FT member in southern Assam’s Karimganj district declared a suspected migrant an Indian, while noting that his family members were referred to in the August 2019 list as the “final NRC”. The list was also being said to be final at various forums. On 18 April, Mr Sarma wrote to the FT asking not to rely on the NRC to decide matters of citizenship. “It has been observed that while disposing of FT cases, various documents related to NRC are being sought from the District Registrar (Deputy Commissioner) of Citizen Registration and the State Coordinator, NRC. Assam. In this regard, I have to inform you that the final NRC is yet to be published by the Registrar General of Citizen Registration,” he wrote. He also said that the NRC was wrong because of the faulty procedure adopted in the process of wrong data entry and updation, as mentioned in the negotiation application submitted before the Supreme Court, which is yet to hear the matter. Is.

One FT member, opting for anonymity, insisted in his reply to Mr Sarma on 10 May that the NRC published in accordance with the relevant sections of the 2003 citizenship rules was final. The member also referred to the official website where the NRC was mentioned as final and an August 2019 press release by his predecessor Prateek Hajela, which “clearly mentioned” that the NRC was final. “State coordinators cannot publicize their erroneous understanding of the law, rules, notifications and orders of the Supreme Court regarding the finality of the NRC… limit of power,” the FT member said. Judges, advocates and bureaucrats with judicial experience are appointed as members of the quasi-judicial body under the Foreigners Tribunal Act, 1941 and the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964.

So what is the status of NRC?

According to the state coordinator, only the office of the Registrar General of India has the authority to publish the final NRC and a notification in this regard is yet to be issued. But the FT members, instead of looking into the cases of people declared foreigners independently from the NRC, are finalizing the NRC and making decisions, saying Mr Hajela’s statement was “misleading”. The NRC officials also informed that there are still some steps left in the updating process.

The next step is to issue rejection slips to each of the 19.06 lakh people excluded from the draft NRC. After receiving such a slip with an explanation as to why he has been excluded from the NRC, a person has to approach the concerned FT within 120 days with documents to prove his citizenship. The FT will then decide whether to include or reject the person in the NRC as a ‘citizen’ or a ‘foreigner’.

What is the stand of the Assam government on NRC?

The BJP-led Assam government has stuck to its stand that the NRC was wrong. He has said that at least 20% of the names listed in the districts bordering Bangladesh and 10% in the remaining districts need re-verification. The government has not accepted the list as final and has decided to approach the Supreme Court for a “correct” NRC. However, the government has decided to insist on unfreezing the biometrics of 21 lakh people collected during the update process, to enable them to obtain an Aadhaar card, if a person is eventually declared as a non-citizen. is marked, it can be locked again.

Summary

• A member of the Foreigners Tribunal of Assam has written to Hitesh Dev Sarma, the State Coordinator of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), asking him to stop interfering in the lawful functioning of the tribunal. The letter was in response to Mr Sarma’s letter dated April 18, in which he had asked all FT members not to consider the NRC “final”.

• The complete NRC draft was published on August 31, 2019. Of the 3.3 crore people who applied to be included in this draft, 19.06 lakh were excluded.

• In 2021, Mr Sarma submitted an affidavit in the Gauhati High Court, referring to the August 2019 NRC as “supplementary list” and not as “final NRC” and sought re-verification. One FT member, choosing anonymity, insisted that the NRC published in accordance with the relevant sections of the 2003 citizenship rules was final.