'Citizenship Status Must Be Determined Through Fair Process': Supreme Court Sets Aside 27 Foreigner Declarations By Assam Tribunals

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 Court observed.The batch of appeals involved persons who had been declared foreigners either in wholly ex parte proceedings or in proceedings that effectively became ex parte after they stopped participating. While the factual situations varied, the Court identified a common legal issue: whether such declarations could be sustained without meaningful scrutiny of service of notice, opportunity of hearing, the material forming the basis of the reference and the evidence produced by the State.Rejecting the notion that the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 permits automatic declarations, the Court held that the burden on the proceedee operates within a fair adjudicatory process."The 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 Bench observed.The Court explained that even where a proceedee fails to appear after service of notice, the Tribunal continues to function as a quasi-judicial body and must verify proper service, examine whether the "main grounds" of the allegation were disclosed, consider the evidence produced by the State and record reasons supporting its conclusion. The absence of the proceedee, it said, cannot substitute proof of the allegation.Emphasising the constitutional dimension of such proceedings, the Bench noted that Articles 14 and 21 protect "any person" and "no person" respectively, extending procedural fairness even to those whose citizenship is under dispute. Referring to precedents including Maneka Gandhi, Louis De Raedt and National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Court held that proceedings determining foreigner status must satisfy the constitutional requirement of fairness because they may lead to detention, deportation, separation from family and even statelessness.The Court divided the cases into three categories: those where the persons never appeared before the Tribunal despite recorded service of notice; those where the High Court itself undertook appreciation of evidence while upholding ex parte orders; and those where the persons initially participated but later defaulted. It held that all three categories warranted remand because the declarations had not followed complete and reasoned adjudication by the statutory forum.However, the Bench clarified that the remand should not be treated as condoning the conduct of persons who had defaulted during the proceedings. It said the fresh opportunity was being granted only because of the grave consequences flowing from a declaration of foreigner status and directed the appellants to cooperate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.Allowing all the appeals, the Supreme Court directed the appellants to appear before the concerned Foreigners Tribunals within four weeks. The tribunals will permit them to file written statements, documents and affidavits, while the State will also be free to lead evidence. The Court directed the tribunals to decide the references afresh, preferably within six months, uninfluenced by the earlier opinions or the Gauhati High Court's judgments. Until fresh opinions are rendered, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants, provided they participate in the proceedings.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...

'Citizenship Status Must Be Determined Through Fair Process': Supreme Court Sets Aside 27 Foreigner Declarations By Assam Tribunals

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court remanded the matters for fresh hearing.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

'Citizenship Status Must Be Determined Through Fair Process': Supreme Court Sets Aside 27 Foreigner Declarations By Assam Tribunals

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court remanded the matters for fresh hearing.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers