Even USA Feeling The 'Pinch Of Illegal Immigrants': Gauhati High Court Refuses Relief To Declared Foreigner's Family

The Gauhati High Court has held that once a person is declared a foreign national by a Foreigners' Tribunal, constitutional safeguards meant for citizens cannot be extended to such a person, and no further right of hearing is required before expulsion.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, which observed, “Even the United States of America, one of the developed Countries, is starting to feel the pinch of illegal immigrants and the nature of steps taken by it are in the public domain, on which the Court does not comment.”

The ruling was passed in a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenged an ex parte opinion passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai in 2012 whereby her father was declared a foreigner who had entered India after 25.03.1971. The writ petition was filed after a delay of more than 13 years. It was the petitioner's case that her father could not contest the Tribunal proceedings due to ignorance and lack of legal knowledge, that he was not given proper opportunity, and that he was subsequently detained and expelled without being heard, thereby violating his fundamental rights.

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the delay was unexplained and that the petitioner's father had failed to contest the proceedings despite having appeared initially.

On the issue of delay, the Court held that the explanation offered was, “vague and insufficient for the Court to overlook the enormous and extraordinary delay and laches of 13 years, 3 months, 7 days, to assail the said ex parte opinion.”

The Court found that the petitioner's father had knowledge of the ex parte opinion at least since 02.05.2016 but failed to challenge it until 2026, and therefore had effectively waived his right to do so. The Court held that such inordinate delay disentitled the petitioner from relief.

On the requirement of hearing before expulsion, the Court held, “after being declared as an illegal foreigner/ migrant… the father of the petitioner… had no right to be heard either before or after the expulsion order was issued… No compliance with the principles of natural justice is further required to be followed after a proceedee… is declared to be a foreigner.”

The Court further held that granting a fresh hearing would amount to permitting a collateral challenge to the Tribunal's opinion.

Moving to the question of violation of fundamental rights, the Court rejected the petitioner's contention and noted, “… the petitioner has not pleaded… why… she expects the constitutional rights and safeguards, reserved for citizens of the Country to be extended to a 'declared foreign national'… If any such rights are ordered… it would amount to giving special premium and protection to a declared foreign national, which is not envisaged in the Constitution of India…”

The Court opined that by showering sympathy in this particular case, it would encourage unscrupulous practice of not appearing before Courts and Tribunals, despite notice being duly served on the proceedee.

It ultimately opined, “if such belated petitions are entertained after 13 years, 3 months, 7 days, all delays, irrespective of the number of days, will have to be condoned at the drop of the hat. It would also render the provisions of Order 3(8) and Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, otiose, redundant or meaningless. In the process, external aggression, as held in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), would be encouraged.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name: Suktara Begum v. Union of India & 8 Ors.

Case Number: WP(C)/1716/2026

Click here to read the judgment