Assam NRC: SC questions need for sample reverification

Centre and the State make a joint plea to indefinitely extend deadline for publication of final NRC from July 31.

July 19, 2019 02:25 pm | Updated 04:14 pm IST - NEW DELHI

The Centre and Assam urged the court for more time to cross-check “wrong inclusions and exclusions” in and from the draft NRC published on July 30, 2018.

The Centre and Assam urged the court for more time to cross-check “wrong inclusions and exclusions” in and from the draft NRC published on July 30, 2018.

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the plea made jointly by the Centre and Assam to indefinitely extend the deadline for publication of the final National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 in order to conduct a “sample reverification” process to quell a “growing perception” that lakhs of illegal immigrants may have infiltrated the list, especially in the districts bordering Bangladesh.

The Centre and Assam urged the court for more time to cross-check “wrong inclusions and exclusions” in and from the draft NRC published on July 30, 2018.

They said a 20% sample reverification of names included in the draft NRC should be conducted in districts bordering Bangladesh and a 10% sample reverification in the remaining districts.

But the court orally voiced its scepticism. It referred to reports filed by Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela’s reports and said reverification seemed to have been already done during the disposal of claims in the NRC process.

“Mr. Hajela’s report says while disposing of claims, 80 lakh names have been reverified. That means at least 27% of names have been reverified, and you are asking for 20%... So, is there need for a sample reverification? If we are satisfied that verification has been done properly, then there is no need for a sample reverification, isn’t it?” Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is accompanied by Justice Rohinton Nariman on the Special Bench, asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for both Assam and the Centre.

‘Mistakes have crept in’

Mr. Mehta said the findings in Mr. Hajela’s reports may not truly reflect the reality on the ground. “There is a growing perception. They must have done excellent work, but mistakes have crept in. The quantum of people included in certain areas is more... Wrongful inclusions are manifold in the bordering districts, lakhs of illegal immigrants have been included in the draft NRC list. The problem is the border districts are more prevalent,” he submitted.

He said the wrongful inclusions may be because local officers were used in the NRC process and they may have come under local influences.

“There should be proper reverification... There should be no room for a lack of confidence in an NRC exercise that takes away the rights of the people and will uproot them. Though, of course, illegals should be uprooted as India cannot be the refugee capital of the world,” Mr. Mehta urged the court.

However, the Bench adjourned the case to July 23. It asked Mr. Mehta to go through what Mr. Hajela had to say on the issue of reverification in his reports to the Supreme Court on July 10 and 18.

“Mr. Mehta, you are not the only fountain or source of information [about what is happening]. We have our own sources of information and Mr. Hajela has his own,” Chief Justice Gogoi addressed the Solicitor General.

“I claim not to be a fountain of information, My Lord... And it should not be so,” Mr. Mehta responded.

The court asked Mr. Hajela to redact paragraphs in his reports that do not strictly deal with reverification before handing them over to Mr. Mehta.

“There is no national secret in them that needs to be kept from the government,” Mr. Mehta protested lightly.

“Mr. Mehta, we wish to hear this statement from your lips in other cases too,” came Justice Nariman’s riposte.

‘Supplementary lists can be published on July 31’

Meanwhile, Mr. Hajela quoted from his report that supplementary lists containing the latest additions and exclusions made after the claims and objections stage could be published on July 31. This would be followed later by a consolidated list, he submitted.

The Assam government, also represented by advocate Shuvodeep Roy, said the 20% sample reverification should target the border districts, where the incidence of illegal migration from Bangladesh was higher and where population growth had been reported higher than the State average as per Census reports.

Both the Centre and the State have said the reverification exercise should be conducted by Class 1 officers of the State government from other districts who had knowledge and experience of handling the process of enquiry/investigation. The applications further sought an order that the sample reverification should be undertaken at a place different from where the NRC exercise happened. The Assam government agreed that this would cut out the possibility of local influences, biases/threats and so on.

The application filed by the Union Home Ministry tries to impress upon the court the “unprecedented large scale of complexities” involved in the NRC process. The Ministry told the court that the NRC exercise had created apprehensions in the minds of the citizens and could very well impact social harmony, law and order in the State. Tensions could rise with just a few days left before the culmination of the ongoing NRC process.

“It is pertinent that the exercise of sample reverification must necessarily follow before the publication of the final list,” the application said.

The draft NRC list had included 2,89,83,677 persons as Indian citizens. But a total of 40,70,707 persons were left out. They were found ineligible to be considered for inclusion. The Centre said reverification should be done for both inclusions and exclusions.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.