The Supreme Court on Tuesday took serious exception to the NRC State Coordinator for overstepping his brief by making a statement in Press that fresh documents will be accepted for considering claims and objections of persons who have not made it to the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC).
A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and RF Nariman said it was “appalled” to read the news report and sought an explanation from the Coordinator Prateek Hajela and the Registrar General of India, both being present in Court. The Court threatened to send both the officials to jail for contempt but considering the work of finalisation of NRC, thought against it and let them off with a warning not to make any statement without prior permission from Court.
It was an unscheduled hearing as the matter with regard to preparation of NRC was slated for hearing on August 16. On that day, the Centre is expected to bring out a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on how to deal with the claims and objections filed by over 40 lakh people left out in the draft list. The Court had stated on the previous date of hearing that SOP will be first seen by the Court and finalised by it.
This became the cause for the bench’s anger. It said, “Who are you (Hajela) to say that fresh documents will be accepted. How are you concerned with the claims and objections…Don’t forget you are an officer of the Court who has a job to bring out an error-free NRC.” The bench objected to the Coordinator speaking to the media without the issue of fresh documents being considered by the Court. “It is not your job to go to the Press as you do not hold brief for anyone,” the bench added.
“Whatever you say reflects on us. Where is the authority and scope for you to make such a statementij On one hand, we are dealing with the modalities and on the other hand, the SC-appointed officer is telling the country that any document will be accepted,” the bench remarked.
Hajela informed the Court that the statement was made after Registrar General asked him to allay apprehensions among public over non-inclusion of names. The bench termed it most unfortunate on part of both officers and restrained them from repeating it in future.