Point of Law: Proceeding before a Tribunal, though is a summary one, has huge implications for the right of a person.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Ms. Swati Bidhan Baruah, learned amicus curiae appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned counsel assisting Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for the respondent No. 1 as well as on behalf of the NRC, respondent No. 5 and Ms. A. Verma, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Considering the nature of this case, the matter is taken up for disposal at this stage without issuing any formal notice to the respondents.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-4th, Cachar, Silchar, Assam, in Misc. Case No. 07/2018 upholding decision of the learned Tribunal dated 18.01.2018 passed in F.T.4th Case No. 327 of 2017 by which the petitioner No. 1 and his family members were declared foreigners of post 25.03.1971 stream.

4. It appears that the petitioners were proceeded before the Foreigners' Tribunal-4th, Cachar, Silchar, in F.T.4th Case No. 327 of 2017 and an ex-parteorder was passed on 18.01.2018 against the petitioners, as the petitioners failed to appear before the learned Tribunal after being served notice and also did not file written statement after seeking time. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 approached the Tribunal by filing the Misc. Case No. 07 of 2018 for setting aside the said ex-parte opinion dated 18.01.2018, which however, was rejected by the learned Tribunal on 26.04.2018 on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order and also it was observed on the strength of the decision rendered by this Court in Rukia Begum vs. Union of India and Others, 2015 (4) GLT 882 that application to set aside ex-parte opinion should not be entertained in a routine manner.

5. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of certain documents, namely, the voters' list of 1965, in which the names of one Gandhi Lal Das and Sumurta Bala Das are shown, who the petitioner No. 1 claims to be his parents. Similarly, the petitioners have also annexed one photocopy of the voters' list of 1970, where the aforesaid names of the parents of petitioner No. 1 are shown. The petitioners have also referred to a certificate issued by the Mahadevpur Gaon Panchayat, which shows that the petitioner No. 2 is married to the petitioner No. 1 and as such the petitioners submit that there are sufficient materials to show that they are Indians and not foreigners.

6. We are also of the view that if the petitioners are able to prove the aforesaid documents, they may have a legitimate claim that they are Indians and not foreigners.

7. This Court has reiterated the importance of citizenship of a person in today’s world. It is the key to enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by law of the land. It is through citizenship that a person can enjoy and enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights conferred by the Constitution and other statutes, without which a person cannot lead a meaningful life with dignity. A person stripped of citizenship would be rendered a stateless person, if any other country refuses to accept him or her as its citizen. Such is the overarching significance and importance of citizenship to a person. Therefore, any such proceeding which has the potential of depriving citizenship ought to be accordingly, examined from that perspective also. In a normal proceeding before a court of law, in spite of any adverse finding, the person will continue to enjoy the rights as a citizen. Though a proceeding under the Foreigners’ Tribunal, is merely quasi-judicial in nature, yet an adverse opinion by the Tribunal that the proceedee is a foreigner almost seals the fate of the proceedee as far as the issue of citizenship is concerned, as the authorities are expected to declare such a person a foreigner in terms of the opinion of the Tribunal and he would be liable to be detained an