E-Paper
'Fair, lawful, reasonable': SC lays down procedural safeguard in citizenship cases
“Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance,” the court observed.
The Supreme Court on Monday underlined that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must be made through a “fair, lawful and reasonable” process, emphasising that the grave consequences of declaring a person a foreigner require strict adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards.
The ruling assumes significance as the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has triggered widespread concerns and disputes over citizenship claims in parts of the country, bringing questions surrounding proof of citizenship back into sharp public focus.
Reading out the operative portion of the judgment, Justice Vikram Nath, heading a bench also comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta, allowed 27 appeals, set aside the 2024 judgments of the Gauhati High Court upholding the appellants' declaration as foreigners, and remanded the matters to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication. The detailed judgment is yet to be uploaded.
The bench observed that citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of “high constitutional and legal significance”, making procedural fairness indispensable in every determination.
“Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance,” the court added.
While recognising the State's legitimate interest in preventing illegal claims to Indian citizenship, the Bench said such concerns cannot dilute the requirement of a fair adjudicatory process.
“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,” held the court.
It immediately qualified that objective by stressing that citizenship cannot be determined except through a procedure that satisfies constitutional standards. “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 bench said.
The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the appellants' citizenship claims or the authenticity of the documents relied upon by them.
“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,” it noted.
Underscoring the limited nature of its intervention, the bench made it clear that remanding the matters should not be treated as an endorsement of the appellants' claims. Instead, it said, the exercise was intended solely to ensure that the severe civil consequences of being declared a foreigner follow only after a legally sustainable adjudication.
“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 bench observed.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside both the Gauhati High Court judgments, as well as the corresponding opinions of the concerned Foreigners Tribunals, directing the tribunals to hear the matters afresh without being influenced by their earlier findings or those of the high court. The fresh determination, it said, must independently assess the evidence and the rival claims in accordance with the law and should preferably be concluded within six months.
