POC issue due to paretns death
I applied for my wife POC she Australian citizen her mother and father Fijian but her father passed away 40 years ago and mother passed away 20 years ago Nadra asking for their identification documents we only ve her mother bother certificate and marriage corticate dnt ve father other documents but they are not accepting marriage certificate…. on the birth certificate of my wife mention that in front father and mother name that if their father is Indian than mention their name only this issue Nadra asking for their identification documents…her mother and father born in fiji they were not Indian.
ANSWER ;
Under NADRA law and POC regulations, verification of parentage and background is mandatory; however, where the parents have passed away and production of their passports or identity documents is impossible, the law permits reliance on alternative evidence.
In such circumstances, the following substitute documents should be considered sufficient:
- Death Certificates of Parents
Officially issued death certificates establish that both parents died decades ago, making it practically impossible to provide their passports or identity documents. - Affidavit of the Applicant
A duly sworn affidavit by the applicant clearly stating:- the dates and places of death of both parents;
- non-availability of any identity documents due to their death and lapse of time;
- that both parents were born in Fiji and were never Indian nationals;
- that no material fact has been concealed or misrepresented.
- Birth Certificate as Supporting Evidence
The applicant’s birth certificate, showing the names of both parents, serves as supporting proof of lineage, even though it is not, by itself, proof of nationality.
The settled legal principle is that the law does not require performance of an impossible act. Where original parental identity documents cannot be produced due to death and passage of time, duly issued death certificates coupled with a sworn affidavit constitute valid alternative proof.
Any refusal to consider such alternative evidence would amount to an unreasonable and unlawful demand, liable to be challenged before the constitutional courts.