Till four years ago, the 34-year-old was the elected mukhiya of her village in Madhubani district. Now, amidst the confusion stirred up by the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, a question mark hangs over her status – as it does over hundreds of others originally from Nepal who, for generations, have had marital ties with people in eight border districts this side of the border.
“Yahaan maamla phas raha hai (We are getting stuck on this),” admits a Booth Level Officer (BLO) and a relative of the 34-year-old, both of whom don’t want to be identified. “Every family has at least one daughter-in-law from Nepal… We have at least 50-100 such cases in each booth.” The BLO has now approached the Block Development Officer for directions on what to do.
“Roti-beti ka rishta (a union of economics and marriage)” – is how districts such as Madhubani, Sitamarhi, Kishanganj and Supaul define their close ties with Nepal. But, given that the EC has cited “inclusion of names of foreign illegal immigrants” in electoral rolls over the years as one of the reasons for the SIR, the spouses from Nepal who are married into Indian families, legally living in the country, and holding documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, and voter IDs, apprehend they may run into problems.
Officially, Nepal’s diplomatic status is different from Myanmar and Bangladesh, from where most of the illegal immigration is suspected to happen. As per Article 7 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed on July 31, 1950, between the Governments of India and Nepal, the two countries agreed “to grant, on reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other the same privileges in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement and other privileges of a similar nature”.
Consequently, Indian and Nepali citizens have lived, worked and married across the border, without any visa requirements. But, when it comes to voting, the law is clear – only adult Indian citizens can be registered as electors as per Article 326 of the Constitution.
The former mukhiya says her grandfather originally belonged to India but moved to Nepal’s Mahottari district, where both her parents were born and grew up. Then in 2008, she got married to a farmer from Madhubani on the Indian side, who has been a mukhiya himself in the past, and settled here.
After 17 years, she says, “I don’t have any documents from Nepal left. My parents passed away many years ago.” In India, she acquired a voter ID card, followed by an Aadhaar and a PAN card, “based on my husband’s papers”. As for citizenship, given that she could cross back into Nepal whenever she wanted, the thought of applying for it or for an Indian passport never occurred to her. “I never felt the need.”
As per the EC notification, those who don’t figure in the 2003 electoral rolls of Bihar (when the poll panel says it did its last SIR) have to submit any of 11 documents to prove date and / or place of birth, and for those born after July 1, 1987, that of their parents as well – which is akin to citizenship proof. The list of documents includes neither Aadhaar or PAN, nor old voter ID.
So far, the EC’s form for registration as an elector did not require any citizenship proof, only a self-declaration by the person concerned. A false declaration could lead to action. Over the years, many illegal immigrants are believed to have used the self-declaration loophole to get themselves enrolled. They include those born in Nepal, many of whom – to be fair – saw themselves as exempt.
Like in district Sitamarhi, which shares an 83-km border with Nepal. A 37-year-old who lives across the road from the no-man’s land between the two countries says his wife is from Nepal, but has “all her papers – Aadhaar card, PAN card, bank account”. It never occurred to them to have citizenship proof. “In Nepal, families don’t get passports or citizenship documents made for girls because they think they will get married and move away, and then their in-laws will deal with it,” he says.
“If the government makes holding citizenship papers a must, 90% of people will have no proof,” the 37-year-old says.
In an EBC settlement on the border, which falls under the Sursand Assembly constituency, another resident from Nepal moved to India after getting married in 2009. She says she first got an Aadhaar card made using her husband’s as proof, and has voted in every election since she got a voter ID card in 2012.
Having a passport never occurred to her too, but she is in a better position than the others as she has an income certificate, a caste certificate and a residence certificate. She acquired them in 2023 when she wanted to get her children’s names added to the ration card, she says.
Her neighbour, who belongs to Mahottari in Nepal, says she moved to the village after getting married in 2012. “I only have an Aadhaar card,” she says. Another, who came across to India in 2007, says: “I have all the proofs – caste, income, Voter ID and Aadhaar. But, now we are being asked to get vanshavali (family register) made. Everything costs money.”
Asking why the government could not have got the papers made for them, she also wonders if the vanshavali will finally seal the matter. Even BLOs The Indian Express spoke to in Madhubani and Sitamarhi admit they are not sure, as of the 11 documents specified by the EC for the new electoral rolls, the passport and birth certificate are the only ones that clearly record place of birth.
Sitamarhi District Magistrate and District Election Officer Richie Pandey says that voters have to provide a document establishing date and / or place of birth if born before July 1, 1987. For those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, they need to show a document showing their date and / or place of birth, and that of one parent at least; while for those born after that, documents are needed for self and both parents. “They should have one parent born in India and the other should not be an illegal immigrant, which can be shown through passport and visa,” Pandey says.
Asked how many Nepali citizens who have lived for long in India opt for citizenship through naturalisation, he admits the numbers are minuscule. Pandey says only two applications were forwarded by his office to the Home Department in 2024-2025.
A local lawyer practising in Madhubani district court, Suman Kumar, also calls such cases rare. “Nepali citizens can acquire Indian citizenship primarily through naturalisation or registration, as outlined in the Citizenship Act, 1955. This involves fulfilling specific criteria related to residency, good character, and knowledge of an Indian language… There is a lack of awareness and literacy, and the process to get citizenship is also difficult and hectic. So they skip the process and manage to get an Aadhaar card, Voter ID, PAN card etc to avail facilities like Indian citizens without having citizenship.” He adds that it was a lapse on the part of the government, and the EC as well in not holding an SIR earlier.
BJP Sitamarhi district president Manish Kumar Gupta estimates that “thousands” of spouses from Nepal in the district will come on the radar. However, he sees this as a teething problem. “We have held meetings and have asked our Booth Level Agents to help people.”
The husband of a BLO in Madhubani district, who is busy distributing enumeration forms on behalf of his wife, says the move may change things irrevocably in the region. “Agar sarkar proof mangegi, toh yeh shaadiyan ruk jayengi (If the government asks for proof like this, these marriages will stop).”
The case of Biltu Ray of Sonbarsa, Sitamarhi, is illustrative. After his election as his village mukhiya in 2021 was cancelled by the State Election Commission, for allegedly being a Nepali citizen, Ray moved the Patna High Court. In September last year, the court ruled that the Election Commission could not decide Ray’s citizenship, as “this issue has to be decided by the Central government”, and said the EC should refer the matter to it. The SEC moved the Supreme Court in 2024.
On May 15, in a batch of petitions including the SEC vs Biltu Ray one, the Court told the Union government “to point out the prescribed authority who might have been entrusted the responsibility to adjudicate the disputed question of facts in relation to citizenship issues”.
The matter concerning Ray remains pending.