New Delhi: The determination of citizenship status must be made through a fair, lawful and reasoned process, the Supreme Court said Monday while setting aside the Gauhati High Court verdicts which affirmed the orders declaring some persons to be foreigners.
The protection of equality before law, equal protection of laws, life and personal liberty is available to every person within the territory of India, it stressed, adding it has not examined the merits of the claim of citizenship by the appellants.
It asked the tribunals concerned to decide the references afresh, uninfluenced by any earlier observation by the high court or by the tribunals.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the State has a legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship do not secure such status by misuse of process, by false claims or by taking advantage of procedural delays.
“At the same time, the determination of such status must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and reasoned,” the bench said.
While setting aside the orders passed by the high court, the bench remitted the matters to the Foreigners Tribunals concerned for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of appeals arising out of proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. In some matters, the proceedings took place before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals.
The bench noted that in all these matters, the appellants were declared to be foreigners and the said opinions were affirmed by the High Court.
The bench said citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance.
“Article 11 of the Constitution preserves the power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship,” it said.
The top court said separately, the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 provide the statutory mechanism through which questions as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner are referred to and determined by the tribunal.
The bench noted that its order was not intended to confer any equity in favour of a person who is unable to establish his or her claim in accordance with law.
“It is only to ensure that the serious consequence of being declared a foreigner follows from an adjudication which satisfies the requirements of the 1946 Act, the 1964 Order, and the constitutional mandate of fairness,” it said.
The bench said the protection of equality before law, equal protection of laws, life and personal liberty is available to every person within the territory of India.
“A person proceeded against before a Foreigners Tribunal may ultimately fail to establish Indian citizenship, but the process by which such determination is made must still satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness,” it said.
The bench said the apex court has consistently recognised that even a foreigner is entitled to the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It said Article 14 of the Constitution also upholds the content of fair procedure.
The bench observed that a State action which is arbitrary cannot claim the protection of law merely because it is clothed in statutory form.
“A proceeding which may result in a person being declared a foreigner cannot be sustained if the procedure adopted is mechanical, one-sided, or devoid of application of mind. Equal protection of laws requires that the statutory procedure be applied in a real and meaningful manner,” it said.
The bench noted the common grievance of the appellants was that the opinions against them were rendered in proceedings which were either ex-parte or had become effectively ex-parte, and that the statutory determination of their status was made without a full and meaningful opportunity to contest the reference.
The top court made clear that it has not examined the merits of the claim of citizenship set up by any of the appellants.
“We have not expressed any opinion on the genuineness, admissibility, relevance or sufficiency of any document relied upon by them. Those questions must be decided by the concerned tribunals independently, on the basis of the evidence which may be produced before them and in accordance with law,” it said.
It asked the concerned tribunals to decide the references afresh, uninfluenced by any observation made either by the high court or by the tribunals in the earlier opinions.
The top court asked the appellants to appear before the concerned tribunals within four weeks.
“Until fresh opinions are rendered by the concerned tribunals, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants on the basis of the opinions which have been set aside by this judgment, subject to the appellants appearing before the concerned tribunals and cooperating with the proceedings,” the bench said.
It said the concerned tribunals shall make an endeavour to decide the references as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date on which the appellants first appear before them pursuant to the apex court judgement.
