Assam wants Hajela’s email password to probe late updates in NRC list, but he won’t share

In his application to SC, Assam NRC coordinator Sarma says he needs to access Hajela's email to see why changes were made to supplementary draft NRC list even after it was published.

File photo | A man checks his name on NRC list in Guwahati on 31 August 2019 | ANI Photo

New Delhi: NRC state coordinator Hitesh Dev Sarma has claimed that his predecessor Prateek Hajela refused to share the password of his official e-mail ID, which was used for formal communication when he headed the exercise to update the citizens’ register for Assam.

In his application filed before the Supreme Court on 14 May, seeking a “complete, comprehensive and time-bound” re-verification of the updated draft citizens’ register, Sarma said it is “important” for him to access Hajela’s e-mail to ascertain the legality of the changes that were made to the draft NRC even after it was published officially on 31 August 2019.

According to Sarma, the supplementary draft NRC list kept changing until 13 September, and the list published online on 14 September 2019 saw the number of ineligible persons rise by over 16,000 compared to the previous list.

The draft updated list, yet to be notified by the Registrar General of India (RGI), had excluded 19,06,657 applicants, while the one prepared on 14 September 2019 listed 19,22,851 applicants as ineligible.

This, according to Sarma, will have a bearing on the final NRC list because in his estimation the draft list excludes applicants who were otherwise eligible for inclusion.

The 1951 NRC was updated under the top court’s monitoring with 24 March 1971 as the cut-off date as stated in the 1985 Assam Accord for detection and deportation of illegal migrants, especially those allegedly from Bangladesh.

After Sarma took over as the state coordinator in December 2019 following Hajela’s transfer, his application said, the latter’s office computer was found to be reformatted and all previous data deleted.

Later, on examining the supplementary draft NRC list, Sarma said, he noticed the amendments made to it.

“The System Integrator M/s WIPRO, who is responsible for maintaining the database of NRC, was asked to add/delete names in the final NRC till the 13th of September, 2019 through e-mail which may not be legal,” his application mentioned.

As a result, while the total number of persons found eligible for inclusion in the final NRC was 3,11,21,004 as on 31 August 2019, leaving 19,06,657 people, the list published on 14 September 2019 had 3,11,04,811 eligible and 19,44,851 ineligible people.

While several petitions have been filed regarding the NRC, the matter has not been heard in the top court after 2019.

ThePrint reached Hajela through a text message for a comment but a reply is awaited. This report will be updated when a response is received.

Status of 3,745 applicants changed in list after publication

According to Sarma, before examining the legality of the changes made to the list after its publication, an effort was made to verify whether they were authorised by the NRC coordinator or not.

It was found that request emails were sent to WIPRO to change results of 3,745 applicants — 563 from ‘reject’ to ‘accept’ and 3,182 from ‘accept’ to ‘reject’ — by subordinate officials, Sarma’s application said, adding that these mails had the approval of the state coordinator.

However, to know the reasons for the remaining changes, access to the email then used by Hajela is extremely crucial, Sarma said.

According to his application, Hajela has refused to share the password saying the email account contains some confidential information pertaining to sealed cover reports, which he had provided to the Supreme Court. The reports, Hajela has told Sarma, cannot be accessed by the latter, the application said.

It added that the supplementary draft NRC list was not based on the decisions taken by disposing officers (DO), through speaking orders, made on the claims and objections filed by the applicants.

Sarma’s application claimed Hajela had issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) on 18 September 2019, much after the list was officially published, asking the DOs to complete the writing of speaking orders and scan it according to results of the “final NRC”, which was then yet to be published.

This, Sarma said, was a direct interference into the quasi-judicial process of the NRC updation, during the disposal of claims and objections, by the coordinator whose role was just that of a facilitator.

Doubts over software used, ‘integrity’ of data entry operators     

In his application, Sarma also raised questions over the “integrity, loyalty and citizenship status” of the data entry operators (DEOs) who fed details of the applicants in the “Family Tree Matching” software.

“The DEOs being the key representatives of NRC project at the ground level, there should have been intense verification of citizenship credentials and all other relevant records of those persons who were selected as DEOs,” the application submitted.

Sarma also expressed doubts on the credibility of the software, which according to him was designed to prevent senior officers from monitoring the entire Family Tree Matching process.

He claimed the software was prepared in such a manner that as soon as the data is uploaded, it vanishes from the laptop screen of the verification officer and becomes no longer available for quality check by a supervisory officer.

Sarma’s lawyer Manish Goswami explained the purpose for filing the application.

“The entire exercise was carried out under the supervision of the Supreme Court. However, before the current NRC coordinator was about to issue rejection slips to finalise the list for publication by the RGI, he noticed glaring anomalies and thought it prudent to bring it to the court’s notice,” he told ThePrint.

Advocate Sneha Kalita, who represented one of the parties in the case before the top court, welcomed the move by Sarma. “Many senior citizens have been left out as they were unable to follow up with the NRC office. No opportunity was given to such groups of people as well as uneducated people to make a claim for including them in the NRC.”