Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 870
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Rofiqul Hoque – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5598 of 2019]
Decided On : 19-05-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, Adv. Ms. Soni, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Nirmal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
The burden of proof rests on individuals to establish their citizenship status, and discrepancies in documentation can result in losing that claim under the Foreigners Act.
Headnote:(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Sections 2 and 9 - Citizenship - Declaration of foreigner by Foreigners Tribunal - Appellant declared a foreigner for not proving legal status of residency in India - Tribunal noted inconsistencies in evidence provided regarding ancestry and citizenship support documents including voter lists and school certificate - High Court upheld Tribunal's decision citing failure to discharge burden of proof. (Paras 1-12, 13-30)
(B) Legal burden - Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden lies on the individual to establish his or her citizenship status - Non-appearance of reliable evidence resulted in rejection of the appellant's claim. (Paras 13-18)
(C) NRC inclusion - Inclusion of the appellant in draft NRC does not impact prior foreigner declaration by the Tribunal, as citizenship must be determined by law and legal authority, not administrative inclusion - Relevant established principles regarding citizenship law are reiterated. (Paras 20-28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was declared a foreigner by the Tribunal for entering India illegally and failed to prove his citizenship through necessary documents - Key evidence included voter lists and a school certificate, but the High Court found these unreliable.
Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed the findings of both the Tribunal and the High Court, establishing that the burden of proof remained unfulfilled by the appellant and inconsistencies in presented documents warranted the original declaration's affirmation.
Issues: Two main issues identified: (1) whether the Tribunal and High Court's findings were legally flawed, and (2) whether inclusion in the draft NRC negated the foreigner declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that the burden of proving citizenship lies with the appellant under the Foreigners Act - Mere discrepancies can lead to dismissal if not supported by reliable documentation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to the appellant's claim of citizenship. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the appellant's citizenship. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis on evidence, burden of proof, and legal interpretations. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 28) |
| 4. legal issues surrounding the findings of the tribunal and inclusion in the nrc. (Para 12 , 18 , 29) |
| 5. final decision regarding the appellant's foreigner status. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from proceedings1 [Case No. FT/SVR/62/14] under the FOREIGNERS ACT , 19462 [1946 Act] whereunder, vide order dated 04.03.2017, the appellant was declared foreigner, who entered India illegally after 25.03.1971, by the Foreigners Tribunal3 [Tribunal] Jorhat, Assam. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Guwahati High Court4 [High Court] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India5 [The Constitution] through W.P. (C) No. 2207/2017, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.11.2017.
3. Aggrieved by the declaration that appellant is a foreigner and dismissal of the writ petition challenging such declaration, this appeal has been filed.
Facts
4. Before adverting to the issues that fall for our consideration in this appeal it would be apposite to briefly refer to the relevant facts. They are as follows:
(i) Based on a preliminary enquiry, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar made a reference to the Tribunal, inter alia, alleging that the appellant is a foreigner illegally residing in Assam, India.
(ii) On the aforesaid reference, notice was issued by the Tribunal calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why he be not declared a foreigner.
(iii) The appellant contested the notice by filing a written statement on 15.06.2016, inter alia, stating (a) that he is son of Md. Majut Ali, a resident of Daobhangi village under Gauripur police station in the district of Dhubri; (b) Joynal Abdin Seikh was his grandfather and Moriyom Bibi was his grandmother; (c) his own mother’s name is Sopia Bibi (Begum); (d) his grandfather’s name was enlisted in the voters list of 1966 whereas his grandmother’s name was enlisted in the voters list of 1970; (e) he was born in the year 1996 and as such he is a citizen of India.
(iv) To support his case, the appellant submitted school certificate (Ext-1); extract of voters list of 1966 in respect of Gauripur Assembly Constituency (Ext-2); extract of voters list of 1970 in respect of Gauripur Assembly Constituency (Ext-3); extract of voters list of 1993 in respect of Gauripur Assembly Constituency (Ext-4); extract of voters list of 2010 in respect of Gauripur Assembly Constituency (Ext-5) and extract of voters list of 2016 in respect of Gauripur Assembly Constituency (Ext-6).
(v) Ext-1 was a duplicate school leaving certificate dated 03.05.2014 issued by headmaster of number 1236 Khagrabari LP School certifying that (a) Rofiqul Hoque is son of Majut Ali (father) and Sopia Bibi (mother) of Daobhangi village under Gauripur Police Station; (b) his date of birth is 20.07.1996 and (c) he left the school on 31.12.2004.
(vi) The Tribunal held appellant to be a foreigner. While holding so the Tribunal, inter alia, observed that place of residence of Joynal Abdin as reflected in the voter lists was at variance with what was claimed by the appellant. For example, in the voter list of 1993 Joynal Abdin was shown as a resident of Kekurchar6 [Referred to as ‘Bhekarchar’ in the voter list of 1993] village whereas the appellant was resident of village Daobhangi. The Tribunal noted that appellant nowhere stated that his grandfather shifted from one village to the other. The Tribunal thus opined that it is difficult to hold that Joynal Abdin Seikh son of Rahim Munshi of Daobhangi village and Joynal Abdin Seikh son of Rahim Seikh of Kekurchar village were one and the same person.
High Court’s Analysis of the Evidence
5. In the writ petition preferred again
