Petitioner's claim of Indian citizenship for detainee challenges procedural norms; Court grants more time for evidence submission.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court on July 15, 2026, underscored the necessity for petitioners to provide conclusive evidence when challenging the detention of individuals alleged to be foreign nationals. The bench, comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, was hearing a writ petition filed by Suman Molla, a relative of a detainee held on the grounds of being a foreign national.
The petitioner contended that the detainee is an Indian national and argued that the onus lies with the authorities to prove otherwise. Represented by advocates Md. Mokaram Hossain, Mr. Razzak Hossain, and Mr. Karnab Biswas, the petitioner presented land records as evidence of citizenship. However, the court clarified that land ownership or possession of immovable property in India does not constitute proof of Indian citizenship.
The State, represented by Advocate General Mr. Dibasish Basu and his team, maintained that the detainee had confessed to being a foreign national. This contention was supported by the Union of India's legal representatives, including Senior Advocate Mr. Sauvik Nandy.
During the proceedings, the court emphasized the importance of definitive documentation to substantiate claims of Indian citizenship. The judges repeatedly asked the petitioner’s counsel to produce such evidence, but the documents presented were deemed insufficient.
Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the court adjourned the hearing, granting the petitioner additional time until July 20, 2026, to submit any further affidavits or documents that could conclusively establish the detainee’s Indian citizenship. The court's decision highlights the stringent requirements for proving citizenship, especially in cases involving allegations of foreign nationality.
This case reflects ongoing challenges in citizenship verification processes and underscores the legal complexities involved in establishing national identity. The outcome is awaited with keen interest, as it may set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Bottom line:-
Burden of proof lies on the petitioner to conclusively establish the Indian citizenship of the detainee when the detained person is alleged to be a foreign national.
Statutory provision(s): Citizenship laws, Burden of Proof, Detention laws, Writ jurisdiction.
Suman Molla v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2942443
