NEW DELHI: In a new twist to the process for finalisation of Assam NRC , state coordinator Prateek Hajela on Wednesday suggested to the Supreme Court to order exclusion of five documents, including extract of 1951 NRC and electoral rolls of 1971, as proofs for seeking inclusion of names in the final NRC through fresh claims.Documents sought to be excluded from the list of 15 prescribed in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), drafted by the Centre in consultation with the Assam government and were to be attached with applications seeking inclusion of names are: Extracts of 1951 NRC, extract/certified copy of electoral roll up to midnight of March 24, 1971, citizenship certificate issued by competent authority up to March 24, 1971, refugee registration certificate issued up to March 24, 1971 and ration cards issued by the competent authority till March 24, 1971.A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R F Nariman deferred the receipt of claims and objections to the inclusion and exclusion of names in NRC till it finalised the SOPs by firming up the documents that could be permitted to be attached to the claims. The filing of applications were to commence from August 30, but the bench had on August 28 for the first time deferred it as it sought a report from Hajela on the documents as well as possibility of conducting a reverification exercise to scrutinise 10% of draft NRC data to be sure that it was error-free.When the bench sought the Centre’s response to Hajela’s suggestion to curtail the option of 15 documents to 10 in SOPs, attorney general K K Venugopal sought a copy of the report to help the government firm up its response.Justices Gogoi and Nariman curtly told the AG, “We are of considered view that at this stage what has been set out above (in the order) should be sufficient for the Union of India and other stake-holders to indicate their views in the matter within two weeks, where after, orders as may be appropriate will be passed.”The AG persisted for a copy of Hajela’s report and asked: “What is so secret about the report that a copy cannot be given to the Union government which has a larger interest to protect.” The bench shot back: “There is no hard and fast rule. It is the discretion of the court. The Union government may be interested but we have to balance things.” The bench posted the matter for hearing on September 19.