The Supreme Court on Monday held that the inclusion of a person's name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) would not invalidate their declaration as a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal [Rofiqul Hoque vs. Union of India & Ors.]..The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by one Rofiqul Hoque challenging his classification as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, despite his name appearing in the draft NRC.A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Karol said that once a tribunal has declared a person a foreigner, his name could not have appeared in the draft NRC. Even if it did, such an inclusion in the draft NRC would not override the tribunal's decision, the Court added. "In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal," the Court held. .The proceedings against the appellant, Hoque, began when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar, referred his case to the Foreigners Tribunal, alleging that he had entered India illegally after March 25, 1971. In response, Hoque produced voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016, along with a duplicate school leaving certificate, to prove his Indian citizenship. However, the tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the evidence, including unexplained discrepancies in voter ages, changes in place of residence, and the suspicious issuance of a duplicate school certificate a decade after Hoque left the institution. The tribunal ultimately declared Hoque a foreigner on March 4, 2017, after concluding that he failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which places the onus on the person to establish their Indian citizenship..Hoque then approached the Gauhati High Court, challenging the tribunal’s decision. However, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s findings, highlighting the multiple contradictions in his documentary evidence, including varying ages and inconsistent family linkages across voter lists. The High Court concluded that Hoque had failed to substantiate his claim of being a legitimate Indian citizen and dismissed his petition on November 20, 2017. Hoque then moved the Supreme Court. .In the Supreme Court, Hoque's primary argument was that his name was included in the draft NRC, published in 2018. This invalidated the tribunal’s earlier declaration of 2017, he contended. However, the top Court rejected this contention, relying on its previous ruling in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), which held that a tribunal’s declaration of foreign status cannot be undone by subsequent NRC inclusion. The Court noted that under Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, as modified for Assam, individuals already declared foreigners by a competent authority, like the Foreigners Tribunal, are explicitly barred from being included in the NRC. It remarked that the Hoque's name could not have been included in the draft NRC in the first place, and even if included, it would have no bearing on the tribunal’s binding declaration..The Court proceeded to dismiss Hoque's appeal, ruling that his inclusion in the draft NRC did not reverse the tribunal’s finding that he was a foreigner. .Hoque was represented by Senior Advocate Pijush Kanti Roy along with Advocates Kakali Roy, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Sujeet Kumar, Devender Singh, and Gautam Kumar. .The Union of India and other respondent authorities were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, along with Advocates Kanu Agrawal, Shuvodeep Roy, Prerna Dhal, Astha Singh, Sampa Sengupta Ray, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Saurabh Tripathi, and Deepayan Dutta..[Read Judgement]
The Supreme Court on Monday held that the inclusion of a person's name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) would not invalidate their declaration as a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal [Rofiqul Hoque vs. Union of India & Ors.]..The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by one Rofiqul Hoque challenging his classification as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, despite his name appearing in the draft NRC.A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Karol said that once a tribunal has declared a person a foreigner, his name could not have appeared in the draft NRC. Even if it did, such an inclusion in the draft NRC would not override the tribunal's decision, the Court added. "In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal," the Court held. .The proceedings against the appellant, Hoque, began when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar, referred his case to the Foreigners Tribunal, alleging that he had entered India illegally after March 25, 1971. In response, Hoque produced voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016, along with a duplicate school leaving certificate, to prove his Indian citizenship. However, the tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the evidence, including unexplained discrepancies in voter ages, changes in place of residence, and the suspicious issuance of a duplicate school certificate a decade after Hoque left the institution. The tribunal ultimately declared Hoque a foreigner on March 4, 2017, after concluding that he failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which places the onus on the person to establish their Indian citizenship..Hoque then approached the Gauhati High Court, challenging the tribunal’s decision. However, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s findings, highlighting the multiple contradictions in his documentary evidence, including varying ages and inconsistent family linkages across voter lists. The High Court concluded that Hoque had failed to substantiate his claim of being a legitimate Indian citizen and dismissed his petition on November 20, 2017. Hoque then moved the Supreme Court. .In the Supreme Court, Hoque's primary argument was that his name was included in the draft NRC, published in 2018. This invalidated the tribunal’s earlier declaration of 2017, he contended. However, the top Court rejected this contention, relying on its previous ruling in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), which held that a tribunal’s declaration of foreign status cannot be undone by subsequent NRC inclusion. The Court noted that under Rule 4A of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, as modified for Assam, individuals already declared foreigners by a competent authority, like the Foreigners Tribunal, are explicitly barred from being included in the NRC. It remarked that the Hoque's name could not have been included in the draft NRC in the first place, and even if included, it would have no bearing on the tribunal’s binding declaration..The Court proceeded to dismiss Hoque's appeal, ruling that his inclusion in the draft NRC did not reverse the tribunal’s finding that he was a foreigner. .Hoque was represented by Senior Advocate Pijush Kanti Roy along with Advocates Kakali Roy, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Sujeet Kumar, Devender Singh, and Gautam Kumar. .The Union of India and other respondent authorities were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, along with Advocates Kanu Agrawal, Shuvodeep Roy, Prerna Dhal, Astha Singh, Sampa Sengupta Ray, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Saurabh Tripathi, and Deepayan Dutta..[Read Judgement]
