Search by filter:
Year of Decision:
Judicial Body:
Themes:
> Doubtful voters in electoral rolls
21 CASE LAWS FOUND
Golapi Begum v. Union of India, WP(C)/2434/2020
The Gauhati High Court held that the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction by declaring the Petitioner a ‘foreigner’ on a ground not referred to it. The High Court observed that the Tribunal cannot assume suo motu jurisdiction to give an opinion beyond what is sought and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in terms of the reference.
Marium Khatoon v. State of Bihar, CWJ No. 390 of 2020
The Patna High Court intervened and expedited a matter for repatriation of two Bangladeshi illegal migrants staying in an After Care Home in India. The court conducted an investigation of these Homes and ordered the State Government to set up Detention Centres for such migrants in accordance with Central Government guidelines.
Suresh Raj v. State, Criminal O.P. No. 5875/2021
The High Court of Madras rejected the bail petitions of several foreigners who overstayed in or illegally entered India. It also issued several directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and other authorities to curb and strictly regulate the presence of illegally staying foreign nationals in the country.
Asor Uddin v. Union of India, WP(C)/6544/2019
The Gauhati High Court set aside an ex-parte order by the Foreigners’ Tribunal which declared the petitioner a “foreigner” due to his repeated non-appearance before the tribunal. The court reasoned that there were sufficient reasons which made the petitioner unable to present himself before the tribunal.
Kabir Uddin v. Union of India, WP(C)/7901/2019
The Petitioner had been declared a foreigner through an ex parte order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal. The Gauhati High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order due to the improper procedure followed and remanded the matter to the Foreigner’s Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Smt. Sefali Rani Das v. Union of India, WP(C)/206/2018
The Petitioner was declared as a foreigner by an ex parte order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal. The Gauhati High Court remanded the matter to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for reconsideration on the ground that citizenship should be decided on merit, and not by default.
Akhlima @Aklima Begum v. Union of India, I.A.(Civil)/1335/2021
The Petitioner, a declared foreigner, was granted bail by the Gauhati High Court in a previous order. In response to the risk posed by overcrowded jails in the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court extended the bail until the disposal of the writ petition which challenged the Foreigners’ Tribunal’s order.
Samsul Hoque v. Union of India, WP(C)/6056/2019
In response to the second wave, the Gauhati High Court modified its previous order and directed the authorities to release ‘foreigner’ detenues who have completed two years of detention on a personal bond of Rs.5000 with a like amount of one surety instead of two.
Mangla Das v. Union of India, Review.Pet./73/2021
The Gauhati High Court granted the Petitioner, a person declared as a “foreigner”, the liberty to seek citizenship under the Gazette notification of 2015 on the ground that he was a persecuted minority as he belonged to the Hindu faith and migrated from Bangladesh.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, W.P. No. 793 of 2017
The Petitioners, Rohingya refugees, sought the release of detained Rohingya refugees in Jammu who were facing deportation. The Supreme Court allowed deportation of the refugees, holding that the right against deportation is concomitant to rights under Article 19(1)(e).
Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021
The Manipur HC held that the principle of non-refoulement was part of Article 21, thereby protecting Myanmarese nationals who entered India illegally under the threat of persecution by declaring them to be ‘refugees’ and not ‘migrants’.
Idrish Ali @Idris Ali v. Union of India, WP(C)/7349/2021
The High Court of Gauhati set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Foreigner’s Tribunal declaring the Petitioner as a foreigner. The High Court decided to give the Petitioner another opportunity to make his case as the Petitioner was unable to attend the proceedings because he could not collect necessary documents in time to contest the reference.
Mamtaz Begum v. Union of India, WP(C)/7305/2021
The Petitioner was declared as a foreigner by an ex parte order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal. The Gauhati High Court remanded the matter to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for reconsideration on the ground that the Tribunal had not actually arrived at a specific finding as to when the petitioner had entered India.
Sujab Ali v. Union of India, WP(C)/2221/2020
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, declaring the petitioner to be a ‘foreigner’ who entered India after 25.03.1971. The High Court held that the order neither demonstrated proper consideration of the Petitioner’s evidence nor provided sufficient reasons for rejecting it. The matter was remanded back for fresh hearing and the Petitioner was released from detention subject to conditions.
Bailly Gui Landry v. The State of Telangana, Criminal Petition Nos. 4396 and 4400 of 2021
The High Court of Telangana quashed the orders of deportation issued by a Magistrate against the Petitioner, a foreigner who was the national of Ivory Coast. The High Court held that a Magistrate does not have the power to issue an order for deportation.
Jasmin Begum @Jesminara Begum v. Union of India, SLP Civil No. 1564/2020
The Gauhati High Court upheld the order of a Foreigners Tribunal that declared the Petitioner as a foreigner. The High Court considered the evidence placed on record by the Petitioner to be insufficient for proving her citizenship, stating that there were no errors apparent on the face of record that warranted interference with the Foreigners Tribunal order.
In Re State of Assam, PIL (Suo Motu) No. 4 of 2020
The Gauhati High Court sought details of declared ‘foreigner’ mothers whose children had been detained inside the jails along with them. In a subsequent order, the High Court directed for the list of such female inmates to be forwarded to the High Powered Committee for them to examine whether they were eligible to be released or not.
Md. Misher Ali @ Meser Ali v. Union of India, CA/1058-1059
The Appellant had been declared an illegal migrant through an ex parte order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal without having been duly served the notice of the proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and the Gauhati High Court judgment dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal and ordered the Tribunal to constitute fresh proceedings.
State v. Bikram Singha, FT Case No. 129/2017
The Foreigners’ Tribunal recognised the statutory right of citizenship by birth for persons born in India prior to 1.07.1987 under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Further, the Tribunal ruled that it could rely on a common Application Receipt Number (ARN) and joint inclusion in the Final National Register of Citizens (NRC), published on 31.08.2019, for the purpose of establishing linkage between the Opposite Party (OP) and their parents, as the NRC is ‘final’ and thus can be used as evidence to corroborate citizenship claims.
Abdul Maleque v. Union of India, WP(C)/2623/2021
The Gauhati High Court set aside an order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal, declaring the Petitioner a “foreigner” on the grounds that the documents he produced were post 1971, and that the Petitioner is already a deemed “foreigner” in light of another order declaring his nephew a “foreigner.” The Gauhati High Court noted that cases must be decided on an independent basis, after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
Swapan Chakraborty v. Union of India, WP(C) 1346/2018
The Petitioner was declared as a foreigner by an ex-parte order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT). In its order rejecting the review application filed by the Petitioner, the FT decided the case on merits without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to place his evidence on record. The Gauhati High Court set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case to the FT for fresh consideration of the case on merits.
Mustt. Fulbanu Nessa @ Fulbanu Begum v. Union of India, WP(C)/725/2021
The Foreigners’ Tribunal reviewed its earlier order which declared the Petitioner as not a foreigner without giving a notice to the Petitioner. The High Court set aside this order as being impermissible in law because of the want of notice.
Rahima Khatun v. Union of India, WP(C)/8284/2019
The Gauhati High Court set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, which declared the Petitioner to be an illegal migrant, on the ground that the order had been passed without hearing the Petitioner. The Court also remanded the matter back to the FT for reconsideration.
Nashima @ Nasima Begum v. Union of India, WP(C)/8838/2019
The Foreigners Tribunal declared the Petitioner a ‘foreigner’ for not being able to prove her linkage to her father via the school certificate. The certificate was not considered because the Tribunal was not able to secure the attendance of its issuing author, i.e. Headmaster. The Gauhati High Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to afford the petitioner another chance to present her case.
Amina Khatun v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 7339/2015
The Gauhati High Court held that the principle of res judicata would not apply in proceedings instituted under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order 1964 since the Foreigners’ Tribunals are not courts and therefore the proceedings cannot be termed as judicial proceedings. This judgement was overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, wherein it was held that res judicata would be applicable to opinions rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunals.
Kamal Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India, WP(C)/7426/2018
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, declaring the Petitioner to be a ‘foreigner’ who entered India after 25.03.1971. Crucially, the Court held that post-1971 documents cannot be dismissed and could be used in conjunction with other evidence. It also reiterated that linkage need not be established with relatives other than the projected ancestor and that minor discrepancies must be ignored.
Amir Khan v. State of Assam, Crl.Pet./128/2020
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a petition that sought to set aside an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, the Court upheld their conviction the Petitioner and three others under Section 14-A and 14C of the Foreigner’s Act 1946 and upheld the order of their deportation. Crucially, the Court refused to invoke its power under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground that the order was legal.
Chaitanya S. Nair v. UOI, W.P(C) 22555/2021
The Petitioner is deemed a non-citizen by the Regional Passport Officer and rendered ineligible to apply for an Indian Passport. The Kerala High Court countered this by proving that the Petitioner is an Indian citizen. Thus, entitling her to a nationality and, by extension, an Indian Passport.
Dulu Chowdhury v Union of India, WP(C)/8146/2019
The Gauhati High Court held that the 60 days time-limit for the conclusion of the Foreigners’ Tribunals proceedings, as prescribed by Clause 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, needs to be construed liberally in the interest of justice, in cases where the delay is reasonable, and not deliberate.
Bablu Paul @ Sujit Paul v. UOI, WP(C) No. 7229/2017
The Gauhati High Court set aside the Foreigners’ Tribunal order that declared the Petitioner to be a foreigner and held that he was qualified as per the Citizenship Amendment Act to avail citizenship through registration. It also observed that the application of S.6(A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 would be restricted to include people who entered Assam after residing in another state only temporarily.
Aziran Bibi v. Union of India, WP(C)/5070/2019
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, declaring the Petitioner to be a ‘foreigner’ who entered India after 25.03.1971. The High Court held that the FT did not properly consider the oral evidence adduced by the Petitioner, and the matter was thus remanded back for fresh hearing.
Saidur Rahman v. Union of India, WP(C)/3576/2017
The Gauhati High Court held that notwithstanding the fact that detained proceedees were liable to be deported to their country of origin after serving their sentence, the State could not deny the petitioners the right to seek refugee status with the UNHCR. Further, the State was required to facilitate their applications for the same.
Thamarai v. Union of India, H.C.P. No.1456 of 2020 & W.P. No.11754 of 2021
The Petitioner filed two writ petitions in the court to allow Bhaskaran, a Tamil refugee in detention, to visit the Swiss Embassy to get a humanitarian visa for asylum and to quash his deportation to Sri Lanka. The Court dismissed both the pleas on the grounds that Bhaskaran cannot be recognised as a refugee and as a foreign national has no fundamental right to stay in India. It also observed that the government has no legal duty to allow Bhaskaran to visit a foreign embassy.
Nobjesh v. Union of India, Review. Pet./147/2019
The Gauhati High Court set aside an ex parte order passed by the Foreigner's Tribunal declaring the Petitioner to be a ‘foreigner’ on the ground that the notice was not properly served to the Petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings before the Tribunal, in which someone other than the Petitioner appeared, were not valid. The Petitioner was allowed to appear before the FT for a fresh determination of his nationality.
Jonathan Baud v. State of Kerala, Criminal Misc. No. 4720/2014
The Kerala High Court quashed prosecution against the Petitioner, a foreigner on a tourist visa, as he was wrongfully being prosecuted on the allegation that he attended a meeting in violation of the conditions of his visa. The Court reasoned that merely attending a meeting is not adequate to constitute an offence under Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act 1946 or the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939.
Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579
The Supreme Court overturned Gauhati High Court’s decision of interdicting Gram Panchayat certificates and clarified that the residentship certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat are ‘public documents’. The same are valid in law as supporting documents only to establish a linkage between the holder of such a certificate and the person(s) from whom legacy is being claimed.
Manowara Bewa v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 2634 of 2016
The Petitioner, declared ‘foreigner’ by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, relied on a certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary as a supporting document to prove her residentship in her village. The Court rejected this certificate, holding that such a certificate is not a ‘public document’ under the Indian Evidence Act but a private document.
Khodeza Bibi v. Union of India, WP(C)/4035/2018
The Gauhati High Court set aside an ex-parte Foreigners’ Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner and remanded the case on account of the petitioner’s non-appearance being unintentional.
Nur Hussain v. UOI, WP(C)/135/2019
The Gauhati High Court held that the Petitioner did not have the locus standi to challenge the FT order since he was neither the proceedee in question nor was he declared a foreigner. It observed that the Petitioner could seek relief from the appropriate authorities in case he faced harassment due to the order.
Md. Tafajjul Hussain @Tafajjul Hussain v. UOI, WP(C) 364/2020
The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Foreigner’s Tribunal that declared him as a foreigner. The High Court of Gauhati found the Tribunal’s evaluation of the documents provided by the Petitioner as incomplete and thus faulty. In accordance, it allowed and remanded the case for a fresh decision.
Pranav Srinivasan v. The Government of India, W.P No. 31272 of 2019
The Madras High Court held that a foetus or embryo is a ‘minor child’ for the purposes of Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Hence, such an embryo acquires the citizenship of its parents. It also stated that if the parents of such ‘minor’ renounce their citizenship while the child is in his mother’s womb, the child will be entitled to seek resumption of his Indian citizenship in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act, upon attaining majority.
Sulekha Haldar v. Union of India, WP(C)/4928/2018
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (“FT”), declaring the Petitioner to be a ‘foreigner’ who entered India after 25.03.1971. The High Court held that not only did the FT not properly consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner, the decision making process was also vitiated by the personal bias of the FT Member. The HC hence overturned the FT’s decision, declaring the Petitioner to be a citizen of India.
Nur Nehar Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)/3250/2019
The Gauhati High Court emphasised the intrinsic and corroborative value of evidence of close relatives and affirmed that evidence should be considered together, rather than in isolation. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal for not considering evidence of relatives of the petitioner.
Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2022
The Police had framed charges against the appellant under sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for facilitating the visit of two Chinese nationals on tourist visas. The Supreme Court, in an appeal against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, quashed criminal proceedings against the appellant due to a lack of basis and foundation.
Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, C.A. 5012/2019
The Supreme Court clarified the authority of the Foreigners’ Tribunals, holding that the Tribunals’ orders were quasi-judicial and not merely administrative orders. It also held that the principle of res judicata applied to these orders. Therefore, the orders would not be appealable before the Tribunal. In effect, appeals would lie only before the appellate courts i.e., the High Court or the Supreme Court through the exercise of writ jurisdiction.