Critically evaluate the case for and against a National Register of Citizens as an instrument to identify undocumented migrants.

Q. Critically evaluate the case for and against a National Register of Citizens as an instrument to identify undocumented migrants. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The NRC is a register of citizens contemplated under Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which empowers compulsory registration of citizens and designates the Registrar General as the Registrar General of Citizen Registration [1]. Tested only in Assam, it is a legally grounded but administratively fragile tool for identifying undocumented migrants.

The case for the NRC - Statutory and constitutional footing: unlike ad hoc drives, it rests on express law [1]; in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act and read Article 355 as a duty to protect States against large-scale illegal migration [2]. - Fills a genuine data vacuum: the Census records only place of birth and place of last residence, not legal status, so it can never certify who is undocumented [3]. In the absence of such a register, official claims rest on untested inputs — the Government's 2016 Rajya Sabha reply of "around 2 crore" illegal Bangladeshi migrants was itself qualified as "available inputs" with no methodology [4]. - Individualised due process: verification against legacy data and the Assam Accord's 25 March 1971 cut-off, with claims and objections, is fairer than profiling by language or religion [5].

The case against - Poor yield against cost: Assam's final NRC (2019) excluded 19,06,657 of 3.30 crore applicants [6] — a fraction of the crores alleged, after years of effort and litigation. - Reversed burden of proof: the onus falls on the individual to produce decades-old documents, penalising the poor, women married into other districts, and flood-displaced families. - No exit route: exclusion creates statelessness risk without any repatriation arrangement, and exclusion from the register is not by itself proof of foreign nationality [6].

An NRC is therefore a legitimate instrument, not a sufficient one. Its credibility depends on strengthening migration statistics, legal aid and tribunal quality, and settling post-exclusion policy in advance — pursued through the Assam Accord's Clause 6 framework [5], so that identification advances constitutional due process rather than mass disenfranchisement.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Citizenship Act, 1955 — India Code — Section 14A: statutory basis of the NRC and Registrar General of Citizen Registration 2. Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India, 12 July 2005 — IMDT Act struck down; Article 355 duty regarding illegal migration 3. Census of India 2011 — Migration (D-series) module, ORGI — Census captures place of birth/last residence, not legal or citizenship status 4. Two crore illegal Bangladeshi living in India: Govt (PTI, 16 Nov 2016) — Rajya Sabha written reply citing "available inputs", no exact data 5. Cabinet approves High Level Committee to implement Clause 6 of the Assam Accord — MHA — Assam Accord framework and 1971 cut-off 6. Press Brief, Office of the State Coordinator, NRC, Assam, 31 August 2019 — 19,06,657 excluded of 3,30,27,661 applicants; exclusion not equal to declaration as foreigner