Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1134
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SHAMIMA JAHAN, JJ.
Md. Mannas Ali, S/o. Late Lal Mamud – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Department Of Home And Ors. – Respondents
Review.Pet./60 of 2026, WP(C)/7195 of 2025
Decided On : 02-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Citizenship and Immigration
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Review Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review for tribunal opinions - Application of legal maxims 'ex visceribus actus' and 'ut res magis valeat quam pereat' - An order will not be declared a nullity based on technical non-compliance when the intent of informing the party is fulfilled and no prejudice is proven by the claimant. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
An individual challenged an ex-parte order declaring them to be a foreigner, following the dismissal of an earlier petition. The primary assertion was that the initial tribunal notice was not served in the required bilingual format (English and official state language), claiming this procedural irregularity invalidated the entire proceeding.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the notice provided served the essential purpose of informing the individual of the burden to produce evidence regarding their citizenship status. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the individual suffered prejudice due to the language of the notice, the procedural deviation does not warrant reopening the matter.
Issues: Whether the failure to provide a bilingual notice as per procedural rules vitiates the ex-parte proceedings and whether, under the specific circumstances, relief should be granted through a review petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural rules governing notice must be interpreted purposively to ensure workability and the avoidance of invalidation where the core purpose of the notice—informing the recipient of their legal obligation—is met. A technical omission in service requirements that causes no actual prejudice does not render a tribunal’s opinion a nullity.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr P.C. Dey, Mr Basab Dey
For the Respondent: DY. S.G.I., SC, F.T, SC, ECI, SC, NRC, GA, Assam.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and history of the case from tribunal to supreme court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. petitioner's argument regarding the invalidity of notice service due to lack of bilingual copy. (Para 7 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. respondents' arguments and the statutory burden of proof on the proceedee. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. judicial interpretation of proper service through purposive reading and binding precedents. (Para 18 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. evaluation of delay and absence of prejudice in service of notice. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 41) |
| 6. historical and legal context of d-voter citizenship verification procedures. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. final conclusion and order dismissing the review petition with typological clarifications. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel for FT and Border matters, for respondent no. 2 and 3; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.4; and Ms. M. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.5.
2) In view of the issue involve in this review petition, as notice has been issued vide order dated 07.04.2026, the matter has been heard.
3) The petitioner was a proceedee in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98], which was a reference made before the Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, Assam. Despite notice being duly served in accordance with the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and on failure of the petitioner to contest the proceeding and prove his Indian citizenship, the reference was answered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal in favour of the State and against the petitioner, vide ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, thereby declaring him to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
4) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely, Md. Mannas Ali, had assailed the said ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98]. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 7195/2025. This Court, by order dated 16.12.2025, had dismissed the said writ petition.
5) The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India and the said Hon’ble Court, by order dated 27.02.2026, in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7428/2026, had passed the following order, which is quoted below:-
“1. The petitioner was declared a foreigner through an ex-parte The order by the Foreigners Tribunal vide order dated 10.05.2018. ex-parte order was passed because the petitioner statedly did not petitioner chose to case was fixed The appear nor file the written statement when the before the Tribunal on 07.04.2018, 18.04.2018, and 24.04.2018. challenge the same before the High Court through a writ petition filed in the year 2025. The High Court has dismissed the same vide the impugned judgment on the ground of Signame plained and enormous delay of approximately 7 years, 6 months, and 24 days.
2. A categorical stand is being us taken before that the petitioner was never served proper notice by the Tribunal and, as he had no a uch, opportunity to challenge the same within Seasonable time. That being so, it seems to us that the petitioner should raise such a factual issue before the High Court in a review petition.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application before the High Court along with necessary documents. If such a petition is filed within two weeks, we request the High Court to not reject the
