Tuesday, Jul 14, 2026 10:00 [IST]
Last Update: Tuesday, Jul 14, 2026 04:21 [IST]
NEW DELHI, (IANS): The Supreme Court on
Monday set aside ex parte opinions passed in 24 Foreigners Tribunal and
erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal cases in Assam, holding
that declarations of a person as a foreigner cannot rest on a mechanical
adjudication without ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing and meaningful
consideration of the material on record.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
remanded all the matters to the competent Foreigners Tribunals for fresh
adjudication, while granting the proceedees one final opportunity to establish
their claim to Indian citizenship.
The apex court directed the appellants to appear before
the Foreigners Tribunals concerned within four weeks and permitted them to file
written statements, documentary evidence and affidavits in support of their
citizenship claims.
The Tribunals have been requested to decide the
references afresh, preferably within six months from the date of the
appellants' appearance.
Setting aside the judgments of the Gauhati High Court as
well as the corresponding opinions of the Foreigners Tribunals and erstwhile
IMDT Tribunals, the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench clarified that it had not
examined the merits of any individual's citizenship claim.
"The determination of such status must be made
through a process which is fair, lawful and reasoned," the Supreme Court
said, adding that while the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 remains on the proceedee, "the remand being directed by this
Court is not intended to dilute that burden".
Highlighting the serious consequences flowing from a
declaration of foreigner status, the bench observed that an ex parte proceeding
"may dispense with the participation of the absent party, but it does not
dispense with objective consideration and meaningful adjudication by the
Tribunal".
"It does not permit the Tribunal to treat absence of
the proceedee as a substitute for examination of the material placed before
it," the judgment said, adding that Section 9 of the Foreigners Act
"does not authorise a mechanical declaration".
"The existence of a statutory burden under Section 9
of the 1946 Act cannot be read to mean that the Tribunal is relieved of its own
obligation to conduct a lawful adjudication. Section 9 does not authorise a
mechanical declaration. It does not permit the reference to be accepted as
conclusive merely because it has been made," the judgment said.
The apex court said that even where a proceedee fails to
appear despite service of notice, the Foreigners Tribunal continues to function
as a quasi-judicial forum and must satisfy itself that notice was duly served,
the "main grounds" of the allegation were disclosed, the state's
evidence was examined, and reasons were recorded before returning its opinion.
Referring to constitutional safeguards, the Justice
Vikram Nath-led Bench said that Articles 14 and 21 protect "any
person" and "no person", respectively, and are not confined to
Indian citizens. "A person proceeded against before a Foreigners Tribunal
may ultimately fail to establish Indian citizenship, but the process by which
such determination is made must still satisfy the constitutional requirements
of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness," it observed.
The top court further held that while the state has a
legitimate interest in identifying persons who are not entitled to Indian
citizenship, such determination cannot rest on a mechanical or one-sided
process. "The serious consequence of being declared a foreigner follows
from an adjudication which satisfies the requirements of the 1946 Act, the 1964
Order, and the constitutional mandate of fairness," the judgment said.
Pending fresh adjudication, the Supreme Court directed
that no coercive action will be taken against the appellants on the basis of
the earlier opinions that have now been set aside, provided they appear before
the Foreign Tribunals within the stipulated period and cooperate with the
proceedings.
