The Supreme Court on Monday underscored that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must be carried out through a "fair, lawful and reasonable" process, while setting aside judgments of the Gauhati High Court that had upheld declarations of 27 appellants as foreigners.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed 27 appeals and remanded the cases to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication, holding that the issue of citizenship carries profound constitutional significance and must be decided in accordance with the requirements of fairness.

"Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance," the Court observed.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the State's interest in preventing illegal claims to Indian citizenship.

"The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship do not secure such status by misuse of process, by false claim or by taking advantage of delays," the Bench said.

However, it stressed that this objective cannot come at the cost of procedural fairness.

"At the same time, the determination of such status must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and reasonable. The statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 remains fully applicable," the Court observed.

Clarifying the scope of its order, the Bench said it had not examined the merits of the appellants' claims to Indian citizenship.

"We have not examined the merits of the claims of citizenship by the appellants or expressed any opinion on the genuineness, admissibility, relevance or sufficiency of any document relied upon by them. Those questions must be decided by the concerned Tribunal independently," the Court said.

The Bench further clarified that the remand should not be construed as granting any equitable relief to the appellants.

"The remand being directed is not intended to confer any equity in favour of a person who is unable to establish his or her claim. It is only to ensure that the serious consequence of being declared a foreigner follows from an adjudication which satisfies the requirements of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and the constitutional mandate of fairness," the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside both the Gauhati High Court judgments and the corresponding opinions and orders passed by the concerned Foreigners Tribunals.

"The concerned Tribunals shall decide the cases afresh and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court or by the Tribunals in the earlier opinions," the Court directed.

In the lead case, the Gauhati High Court had dismissed the challenge to an ex parte order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring the petitioners to be foreigners. The High Court noted that despite due service of notice, none of the proceedees had appeared before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal's opinion was challenged only after nearly 23 years.

The High Court held that, in the absence of any written statement, documents or evidence from the proceedees, "the Tribunal had no option but to affirm the reference."

While acknowledging that proceedings under the Foreigners Act cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and that a proceedee must be given a fair opportunity to establish Indian citizenship, the High Court held that such opportunity could not be "enlarged to an endless exercise." It observed that several opportunities had been granted but were not availed of by the petitioners.

Relying on Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the High Court emphasised that the burden of proving Indian citizenship rests entirely on the proceedee, since the relevant facts are especially within his or her knowledge. It held that this burden does not shift even in ex parte proceedings and that where no evidence is produced, the Tribunal is justified in declaring the proceedee to be a foreigner based on the reference made against them.

Story to be updated after the judgment is uploaded.

Case : SABITRI DEY @ SWASTHI DEY Vs UNION OF INDIA C.A. No. 2820/2024 Diary No. 28741 / 2020 and connected cases