'Not Entitled To Relief U/Art. 226': Calcutta HC Refuses To Interfere With Show Cause Notice Issued By UIDAI Suspecting Petitioner's Citizenship

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday refused to interfere in a dispute over the citizenship of a Hindu man, claiming to have converted his religion from Islam, by observing that no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner had challenged a show cause notice dated January 27, 2022 issued by the UIDAI stipulating that his Aadhar Card would be deactivated if he fails to provide any decision authenticating his citizenship or residence in India.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, 

"In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to his Aadhar Card or its proposed de activation."

In the instant case, the petitioner claimed to be born to a Muslim family in Kolkata in the year 1982 and to have subsequently changed his name and religion to Hinduism in order to get married. He was residing in Mumbai and had also obtained a Passport and an Aadhar Card from Mumbai.

The petitioner claimed that he frequently visited Bangladesh and on one such trip while returning to India, he was apprehended at the border Check Post, at Haridaspur, Petrapole. Discrepancies were found in his documentation and notice was sent to the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai.

Consequently, an FIR was registered against him and a charge sheet was also filed under various provisions of the IPC and under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The petitioner's passport was thereafter revoked by the RPO, Mumbai and an appeal is pending in this regard.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire case against him by the Immigration Officer at Petrapole is baseless. He therefore sought quashing of the entire proceedings. It was also submitted that the order of bail itself granted to the petitioner would itself clearly indicate that he was born in Kolkata. 

Upon a perusal of the submissions, Justice Mantha noted that a statutory authority had found discrepancies in the petitioner's passport and accordingly remarked, 

"This Court notes that there is a finding by an authority constituted statute of discrepancies in the petitioner's passport based on which it has been revoked. There is also charge sheet filed against the petitioner under the appropriate penal laws referred to herein above."

While refusing to quash the impending proceedings against the petitioner, the Court underscored that the order should not stand in the way of the Appellate Authority considering the petitioner's appeal under the Passport Act. The charge sheet may be taken up same for committal in trial expeditiously, it was directed further.

While dismissing the plea, the Court further observed,

"This Court is not inclined to entertain the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the charge sheet since this Court does not find it to be in abuse of process of law or without jurisdiction."

Case Title: Zia Sharif Hussain @ Tushar Subash Roy

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 63 

Click Here To Read/Download Order