Citizenship : A Ship on an Uncharted Sea ?

 The Supreme Court’s recent focus on ensuring a fair and reasoned process for citizenship and property-related actions reflects a consistent, core concern I have long argued for: the necessity of preventing administrative power from overriding due process.

Reflecting on "Persecuted: Prove It Yourself"

In my earlier piece, Persecuted: Prove It Yourself, I cautioned against the dangers of turning administrative burdens into instruments of exclusion. The core of my argument was that when the state demands proof of status—whether it is nationality or evidence of persecution—the process itself often becomes a "blunt instrument" that disenfranchises the vulnerable.

My suggestions centered on:

• Humane and Accessible Processes: I argued that verification exercises must be predictable, compassionate, and reversible.
• Multiple Forms of Evidence: I opposed the reliance on a single "gold standard" document, advocating instead for a portfolio approach—ration cards, school records, sworn affidavits, and local verification—that recognizes the reality of people’s lives.
• Institutional Responsibility: I emphasized that the burden of proof shouldn't be a trap. If the state flags a citizen, it must provide a transparent, time-bound mechanism for correction before any penalty occurs.

Alignment with Supreme Court Remarks

The latest remarks from the Supreme Court, as reported in The Hindu (Fair, reasoned process must decide citizenship, Supreme Court says), align strikingly with this philosophy. The Court’s insistence that citizenship determinations cannot be left to arbitrary administrative whims, but must follow a "fair and reasoned process," validates my long-held view that the legitimacy of such exercises depends entirely on their procedural integrity.

When the Court emphasizes that authorities cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner, it echoes the sentiment I expressed in Bulldozer Justice: Cannot be an instrument of “Punishment before Trial”. Whether it is the demolition of property or the stripping of citizenship, the principle remains the same: administrative convenience can never supersede constitutional due process.

To the extent that these remarks require the state to be accountable, transparent, and bound by judicial oversight, they move the needle closer to the safeguards I championed in my earlier work. The judiciary is finally signalling that in a democracy, the burden of being "fair" rests squarely on the shoulders of the state—a standard I have advocated for consistently across my writings on the CAA and electoral roll verification.

---

Sources

#	Title	Date	About
1	Minority Report?	2013-09	Critique on arbitrary detention and the role of courts.
2	CAA : Is this the last word?	2023-11	Argument for a more inclusive and process-oriented citizenship policy.
3	Bulldozer Justice: Cannot be an instrument of “Punishment before Trial”	2024-11	Defense of due process against extrajudicial state action.
4	Proving Voter Nationality	2026-05	Discusses risks of disenfranchisement in verification processes.
5	Persecuted: Prove It Yourself	2026-05	Argues against administrative traps that burden the vulnerable.
6	Fair, reasoned process must decide citizenship, Supreme Court says	Unknown	News report on Supreme Court remarks regarding citizenship processes.