Why India needs NRC
India continues to face immense pressure from illegal immigration, particularly from Bangladesh and Myanmar, contributing to strained resources, demographic imbalance, and security concerns.
With India’s population at 1.4 billion and counting, and with limited resources, the need to clearly distinguish citizens from non-citizens is increasingly urgent.
The government came up with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) as the solution by the 2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Why NRC been delayed
But the NRC has been persistently delayed.
Political opposition, driven by fears of disenfranchisement of illegal immigrants who are the vote banks of a number of opposition parties, has created a stalemate.
And the BJP lacks an absolute majority in the parliament now. NDA allies are unlikely to support NRC, effectively shelving it despite its importance.
SC on citizenship: Central government (and not EC) is the authority
SC has clarified in the SIR Case that EC’s role is not to identify citizens to prevent voter disenfranchisement; the duty of citizenship determination lies solely with the Central government.
Can the Centre now implement NRC?
Yes. The Centre always had the authority. The Court’s observation simply addresses the objection that some opposition parties tried to raise.
While the Court retains the power to strike down specific procedures that may violate fundamental rights of Indian citizens, the overall concept of NRC cannot be legally blocked.
How the government can verify citizenship: Documents & process
A nationwide NRC would likely require citizens to submit documents such as:
- Birth and school certificates, electoral rolls, passport, land records
- Supporting ID like Aadhaar, PAN, or ration cards
- Legacy claims linked to verified ancestors
Special provisions can be made to assist poor people who may lack documents due to negligence or displacement, such as a family-based verification mechanism. The verification process can be documented as part of their identification for future reference, if any.
For example, individuals failing to provide adequate proof could undergo cross-verification using intelligence inputs, immigration records, and demographic data.
Disputes can be handled by citizenship tribunals, with a structured appeals process to protect rights.
What can the government do with ineligible individuals?
This is where policy gets both complex and sensitive. Once individuals are identified as non-citizens after all the above processes, the government has several options: legal, administrative, and humanitarian.
- Classify them as illegal immigrants under the Foreigners Act or the Citizenship Act.
- Immediately bar them from voting, government employment, and welfare schemes.
- Initiate deportation proceedings, where feasible, through bilateral agreements (e.g., with Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal).
- Facilitate judicial appeals so that wrongful exclusions can still be corrected.
But if the government doesn’t want to (or is unable to) make a decision, there remains one more prudent option, and this is where the NRC can be strengthened.
Temporary permits with biometric identification
To prevent misuse and reduce national security risks, those found ineligible for citizenship must not be left untracked or allowed to blend back into the system.
The government should introduce a system of temporary residence permits for all such individuals, with the following features:
1. Biometric registration (including iris scan) of illegal immigrants
Each individual classified as an illegal immigrant can be mandatorily registered with biometric data like fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scans.
This will create a permanent, tamper-proof record. It will ensure that the same person cannot resurface later under a different identity and fraudulently claim citizenship.
2. Digitally tracked temporary permits
These temporary permits should be:
- Digitally linked to the biometric profile
- Non-transferable and geo-tagged to limit mobility
- Renewable periodically with review
They can be clearly marked as non-citizens, denying access to voting and key government benefits, unless they are able to prove unambiguously otherwise.
3. Restricted mobility
To prevent unauthorized movement and identity fraud, the government can restrict these individuals’ movement outside the district or state they currently reside. GPS-based check-ins and local reporting can be introduced, much like bail conditions.
4. Bar on acquiring Indian documents
The system must ensure that these individuals cannot obtain Aadhaar, Voter ID, passport, or PAN card using fraudulent means. Their biometric data must be used to automatically trigger red flags if any such attempt is made.
This approach is not punitive. It is administrative, protective, and necessary to preserve the sanctity of Indian citizenship while still allowing basic human dignity and survival for ineligible individuals.
If NRC can’t be implemented, still, launch NRRC: Safeguarding citizens’ rights and the idea of NRC
My article proposes a National Re‑verified Register of Citizens (NRRC), a voluntary, non-coercive alternative that addresses objections to NRC while laying the groundwork for eventual mandatory verification[1].
Key features:
- Optional participation: People opting in get final, incontrovertible proof of citizenship.
- Government-supported documentation assistance, especially for marginalized groups.
- Final and unchallengeable status for those on the NRRC, and automatic inclusion of legal descendants.
- Those who do not participate still remain full citizens, but unverified.
- Gradually expanding coverage, easing the burden on legal and administrative systems.
This ensures that even if NRC is delayed, the process of citizen verification is not indefinitely shelved. Over time, a high percentage of the citizenry could be NRRC‑verified, significantly reducing uncertainties and future litigation.
Constitutional oversight: Can SC intervene?
SC can only step in if:
- NRC or NRRC violates articles 14 or 21
- Procedures are arbitrary, discriminatory, or lack due process
- Appeals and judicial review mechanisms are absent
Transparent design, fair appellate tribunals, and protections for vulnerable groups can be built to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Political vs legal opposition: Who can stop the NRC/ NRRC?
Opposition parties may oppose NRC and NRRC politically, but have no direct legal standing unless they represent aggrieved individuals through PILs or constitutional litigation.
The law requires concrete claims of constitutional violation, not ideological disagreement, for court intervention.
Conclusion: A balanced path forward
India urgently needs to resolve its citizenship conundrum. SC has clarified that the Centre holds the constitutional mandate, and with it, the responsibility to act. If the government still fails to act, it will have only itself to blame.
A fair, transparent NRC, anchored in biometric safeguards and temporary permit systems, can preserve national integrity while maintaining human dignity.
And if political realities delay the NRC, India should not abandon the citizen-verification journey. The NRRC offers a dignified, scalable, and legally sound interim path, ensuring the idea of a verified citizen register is not lost.
The time has come for India to define its citizenship clearly, enforce it fairly, and secure it firmly without compromising compassion.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
References:
[1] NRRC: Addressing the objections to NRC – Oct 11, 2024, PGurus.com
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Suggestion for Nepal’s roadmap to a clean & resilient democracy - September 12, 2025
- Behind India Today’s C-Voter survey: Some hidden insights - September 5, 2025
- Bihar’s tired choices: Why it must give PK a chance - September 4, 2025
