NRC, NPR, SIR: India’s Citizenship Debate and What Comes Next
Image credit X.com Election Commission of India
Since 2020 the government has parked a nationwide NRC while advancing NPR/CAA and, separately, the EC has intensified voter-roll clean-ups via SIR-conflated in public discourse but distinct in law.
By P SESH KUMAR
New Delhi, November 1, 2025 — The National Register of Citizens (NRC) was conceived as a nationwide roll of Indian citizens, rooted in Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the 2003 Citizenship Rules. In practice, only Assam completed an NRC update under Supreme Court supervision in 2019, excluding around 19 lakh applicants and triggering a storm over due process, statelessness, and the burden of proof.
A pan-India NRC was signalled at various moments but never notified; instead, the Union government repeatedly told parliament “no decision yet,” while it pressed ahead with the National Population Register (NPR) and, later, notified rules for the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2024.
Abroad, countries run population registers that are universal, service-oriented and residency-anchored-not retroactive proof-of-citizenship projects. India’s current Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls resembles a voter-list hygiene drive grounded in election law, not a citizenship adjudication under the Citizenship Rules; yet the procedural demands in some states have created an NRC-by-stealth charge that the Election Commission contests.
The way forward is plain: separate service delivery (NPR), voter roll integrity (SIR), and citizenship determination (NRC/Foreigners law); codify humane, appeal-rich procedures; publish clear rules and datasets; and align with global best practice where registers serve people-not the other way around.
What the NRC was meant to be
At law, India may “compulsorily register every citizen” and maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC/NRC). The 2003 Citizenship Rules lay out the mechanics-house-to-house enumeration, local and national registers, and a special, application-based process for Assam distinct from an enumeration model for the rest of India. The Registrar General of Citizen Registration is designated under the amended Act. On paper, it appears to be a neutral civil register. In reality, implementation choices define outcomes.
Why it happened first in Assam
Assam’s trajectory is unique: a 1951 NRC, decades of migration anxieties, the IMDT Act of 1983 struck down by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (2005), and finally a court-monitored NRC update from 2013. The final list of 31 August 2019 included around 3.11 crore names and excluded another19.06 lakh — sparking protests from multiple sides, including Assam’s ruling party leaders who disliked the composition of exclusions. The State Coordinator’s press note and contemporary reportage capture both the scale and the churn.
Rationale vs. reality
The stated rationale was to identify illegal migrants and “clean” administrative rolls. But the Assam experience revealed design risks: heavy documentary burdens (often decades old), inter-generational proof rules, and ambiguous treatment of “doubtful voters” and Foreigners’ Tribunals. Human-rights analyses and court trackers flagged thin due process, inconsistent tribunal quality, and the danger of producing people who are “un-citizened” yet not deportable. Even today, activists complain that the “final NRC” was never officially notified and that appeals remain unclear-leaving lakhs in limbo.
Was a pan-India NRC dropped or merely postponed?
Between late-2019 rhetoric and early-2020 pushback, the Centre told Parliament multiple times that no decision had been taken on a nationwide NRC-even as it advanced the NPR and later notified rules to implement the CAA (March 2024). In short: there is clear legal authority to do an all-India NRC, but no operative notification to start it. De facto, it is shelved; de jure, it remains possible.
The legal position, boiled down
Section 14A of the Citizenship Act authorizes compulsory citizen registration and a national identity card; the 2003 Rules specify how. Assam’s NRC flows from a special rule and Supreme Court directions; any all-India NRC would require formal orders under the same Rules, typically after building on NPR data. None have been issued so far. That is the bright-line difference between “announced” and “in force.”
How other countries do it-and why India’s NRC is different
Denmark’s CPR, Sweden’s folkbokföring, the Netherlands’ BRP and Germany’s Melderegister are universal, residency-based population registers that power public services and tax/welfare delivery. They are continuously updated at municipal offices; one registers when one moves, one gets a personal number, and the state’s systems talk to each other. None of these are retroactive citizenship inquests requiring grandparents’ paperwork; they are administrative rails for everyday life.
South Asia offers a different model: Pakistan’s NADRA and Bangladesh’s NID are biometric identity systems linked to citizenship and voting, with their own inclusion/exclusion and data-security debates. The common thread abroad: service orientation, continuous updates, clear appeal rights; the striking contrast in Assam’s NRC was its one-off, proof-heavy, exclusion-first posture.
Enter SIR: is the NRC “back” in a new avatar?
The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is grounded in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and longstanding roll-revision powers. It aims to purge duplicates, remove the deceased/migrated, and enrol the eligible before upcoming state polls. In some states, 2003 rolls are treated as “probative,” and voters added later or new applicants must file an “enumeration” form with self-declaration and supporting documents-fuelling allegations that SIR is NRC-by-stealth and risks wrongful deletions. The EC insists SIR is a voter-roll clean-up with claims/objections and field verification; critics cite mass deletions and tight timelines that could chill participation. The bottom line: different law, different purpose-but optics and procedure have collided to create understandable public anxiety.
So why did controversy engulf NRC-and what is the way forward?
Because citizenship is existential. A register that can exclude a person unless he can excavate brittle documents, is a recipe for fear in a country where migration, displacement and informal life are normal. Assam’s numbers alone-19 lakh excluded-made that fear concrete. Add 2019–20 protests against coupling NRC with a religion-selective amnesty (CAA), and the idea of a nationwide NRC became politically radioactive. The legal power remains; the operational confidence and social trust do not.
A better path separates three rails: (1) population administration (NPR) for services and planning; (2) electoral integrity (SIR) to keep rolls accurate under election law; and (3) citizenship determination only in narrow, individualized cases with strong due process, state-provided documentation assistance, independent tribunals, and appellate review.
We could borrow from global registers: make the system continuous, digital, service-first and opt-in helpful-not exclusion-first. If an NRC is ever attempted nationally, it must be documentation-light, appeal-heavy, backed by state-issued records (not private archives), and firewall-separated from religion or ethnicity.
Has NRC been “rehashed” as SIR? A candid verdict
Legally, no: SIR is an Election Commission process to maintain voter lists; NRC is a Citizenship Ministry/Registrar-General process under the Citizenship Act and Rules. Functionally, SIR can still feel NRC-like to citizens when authorities demand old proofs, set compressed deadlines, or remove names en masse-especially where migration is high. The cure is procedural: make SIR documentation proportionate, give wide publicity and time, publish granular reasons for deletions, and ensure on-the-spot re-inclusion with standard proofs. That keeps voter-roll hygiene from mutating into citizenship anxiety.
The CAA: What exactly Is it?
In December 2019 India’s Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). What it does: it amends the earlier Citizenship Act, 1955 by adding a fast-track route to Indian citizenship for migrants from three neighbouring countries —Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan — who belong to six specified religious minorities: Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians. These migrants must have entered India on or before 31 December 2014 and must have faced persecution or fear thereof in their country of origin (the stated Government rationale).
What changes under the CAA: The normal qualification for naturalisation (which under the 1955 Act might require many years of residence) is relaxed for these categories; they get a special, quicker process. The government says the Act is humanitarian in intent-protecting persecuted minorities.
Why the uproar: Because it is the first time Indian citizenship law explicitly uses religion as a criterion for eligibility. That shift triggered huge protests and criticism from rights-groups, opposition parties and sections of civil society.
However, there has since been a newer development: In September 2025 the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification extending the cut-off date for entry (for the purpose of stay without valid travel documents) to 31 December 2024.
It’s important to note that this extension is via a notification under the Immigration & Foreigners Act (or related executive order) and not via a fresh amendment to the Act itself as of the sources. But functionally it widens the window for those eligible to apply or to stay without valid documents.
Thus: originally 31 December 2014; later notification extends the practical cut-off to 31 December 2024.
The residence/naturalisation requirement was reduced for the eligible group (making it easier for them).
The “not illegal migrant” clause was added, giving legal protection from deportation/prosecution for that group.
The exclusions of certain states/territories were explicitly maintained.
The clarity on countries and religions eligible was solidified.
The OCI cancellation clause was made a part of the Act, giving a tool for revoking privileges.
In short: CAA equals fast‐track citizenship for certain non-Muslim migrants from specified countries, under tightened cut-off date and relaxed residence rules.
But how does CAA compare with NPR, SIR and NRC?
The NPR is a register of the resident population of India- households, individuals, biometric data in many cases. The key point: the Government has repeatedly insisted that NPR is not a citizens’ register; it is about residency / population data, not explicit citizenship adjudication. So NPR collects data of people living in India – citizens and non-citizens alike – to serve planning, administrative and welfare purposes.
NRC (National Register of Citizens)
By contrast, the NRC is meant to be a register of citizens of India. Under the Citizenship Act (and its 2003 Rules) Section 14A empowers the Government to register every citizen and maintain a national register of Indian citizens. In practice, the only full NRC exercise so far was in the state of Assam (excluding about 19 lakh people). Across India, a nationwide NRC has not been formally notified-so it remains a stated possibility rather than implemented fact. The NRC is about citizenship status (who is a legal citizen, who may be an “illegal immigrant”) rather than simply who lives here.
SIR (Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls)
SIR, as mentioned earlier, is a process by the Election Commission of India to tidy up the electoral rolls: remove duplicates, update entries, verify claims, add eligible voters, correct migration/death etc. It is not explicitly about citizenship or immigrants-it is about voter-list accuracy under the Representation of the People Act and election law. However, in some places SIR procedures have required documentation (birth certificate, proof of residence) which critics say mimic NRC-style demands. But legally SIR is separate from citizenship adjudication; its purpose is electoral cleanliness, not citizenship exclusion or inclusion.
So: where does CAA sit in the scheme?
If one imagines a Venn diagram:
NPR: everyone living in India / wanting to be counted, regardless of citizenship.
NRC: register of citizens (if fully done), i.e., who is legally Indian.
CAA: special carve-out that says: if one belongs to certain religions, from certain countries, entered by a certain date and one gets a faster citizenship path.
SIR: electoral roll process, aimed at voter list hygiene rather than full citizenship status.
CAA links to the NRC discussion (and NPR discourse) partly because critics feared that a nationwide NRC plus CAA would create a two-tier system: non-Muslims may qualify via CAA, Muslims may be excluded under NRC if unable to prove citizenship, leading to statelessness. Indeed commentators flagged the “CAA-NRC package” as a concern. The Government insists these are independent: CAA is for minorities, NPR is separate from NRC, etc.
Hence CAA sits as a citizenship eligibility reform, whereas NPR/SIR/NRC sit on the population enumeration / citizenship status / electoral roll spectrum.
The Final Verdict: Serve the People
India has the legal scaffolding for a national citizens’ register (NCR), but the Assam pilot exposed how a proof-heavy, exclusion-first design can manufacture precariousness at scale. Since 2020 the government has parked a nationwide NRC while advancing NPR/CAA and, separately, the EC has intensified voter-roll clean-ups via SIR-conflated in public discourse but distinct in law. The responsible path now is to hard-separate the purposes, publish transparent rules, lighten documentation burdens, guarantee legal aid and appeals, and adopt the global norm of continuous, service-oriented registration systems. A register should help the state serve people, not make people prove they belong.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
