Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has set aside 27 judgments of the Gauhati High Court that upheld Foreigners Tribunal orders declaring individuals as foreigners, emphasising that citizenship must be determined through a fair, lawful, and reasonable process.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About the Case (Background, Origin of the Dispute, Supreme Court’s Key Observations)

Background of the Case

• The case arose from a batch of appeals filed by 27 individuals from Assam who had been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) through exparte proceedings (decisions made in the absence of the concerned person).
• One of the lead cases involved Sabitri Dey and her husband Sambhu Dey.

How the Dispute Originated?

• In May 1997, the then Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal declared the couple to be illegal migrants after they failed to appear before the tribunal despite notices being issued.
• The tribunal relied primarily on the report of an Enquiry Officer, as no documentary evidence or written statement was presented by the petitioners.
• The petitioners later claimed that they had never received proper notice and became aware of the tribunal's order only in 2019.

• They subsequently challenged the order before the Gauhati High Court, arguing that:

• The proceedings had violated the principles of natural justice.
• No legal aid or amicus curiae had been provided.
• The order was based largely on hearsay evidence rather than substantive proof of foreign nationality.
• They possessed government-issued documents supporting their claim to Indian citizenship.

• However, in 2020, the Gauhati High Court dismissed their petitions, observing that:

• They had failed to appear before the tribunal.
• There was no written statement or documentary evidence before the tribunal.
• The challenge was filed after an unexplained delay of nearly 23 years.
• The High Court also relied upon Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the person concerned.

• The matter was subsequently appealed before the Supreme Court.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

• Citizenship Requires a Fair and Reasonable Procedure
  • The Supreme Court observed that questions relating to citizenship have profound constitutional and human rights implications.
  • The Court held that an individual cannot be deprived of citizenship except through a fair, lawful, and reasonable procedure, consistent with the guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The Bench emphasised that citizenship is a matter of immense constitutional significance and cannot be decided solely on procedural defaults.
• Ex Parte Orders Require Greater Judicial Scrutiny
  • The Court expressed concern over declarations of foreigner status through ex parte proceedings, particularly where individuals claim they were unaware of the proceedings.
    • An ex parte proceeding - only one party is present before the court, without the opposing party being notified or given a chance to participate.
  • The Court observed that before confirming such declarations, tribunals must carefully examine whether:

• Proper notice was effectively served.
• The individual received a genuine opportunity to present evidence.
• Principles of natural justice were followed throughout the proceedings.

• Natural Justice Must Guide Citizenship Proceedings
  • The Court reiterated that audi alteram partem, the principle that every person must be given an opportunity to be heard, is an essential component of fair procedure.
  • Where the consequences involve the possible loss of citizenship and the risk of detention or deportation, procedural safeguards assume even greater importance.
• Documentary Evidence Must Be Properly Considered
  • The Supreme Court noted that the appellants claimed to possess government-issued documents supporting their Indian citizenship.
  • Instead of rejecting such claims solely because of earlier procedural lapses, the appropriate course is to examine the evidence on its merits.
  • The Court observed that citizenship disputes should be decided on substantive evidence rather than technical procedural deficiencies.
• Section 9 of the Foreigners Act Does Not Override Due Process
  • While acknowledging that Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden of proving citizenship on the individual concerned, the Court clarified that this statutory provision does not dispense with the requirement of a fair adjudicatory process.
  • Even where the burden lies on the individual, tribunals remain duty-bound to conduct proceedings in accordance with constitutional principles.
• Cases Remanded for Fresh Adjudication
  • Instead of deciding the citizenship claims itself, the Supreme Court set aside all 27 Gauhati High Court judgments and remanded the matters to the respective Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.
  • The Court directed that the claims be reconsidered after providing the appellants with a meaningful opportunity to:

• File written statements.
• Produce documentary evidence.
• Present witnesses, if necessary.
• Be heard in accordance with the law.

Significance of the Judgment

• The ruling reinforces several constitutional principles:

• Citizenship determination must adhere to the due process of law.
• The Foreigners Tribunals must strictly follow the principles of natural justice.
• Procedural defaults alone cannot become the basis for depriving an individual of citizenship.
• Courts should carefully balance statutory requirements with constitutional guarantees under Article 21.

• The judgment is expected to influence the functioning of Foreigners Tribunals in Assam and strengthen procedural safeguards in citizenship-related adjudication.