The Supreme Court of India has set aside the decision of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, declaring the appellant, Rahim Ali, an Indian citizen. The apex court identified discrepancies in the evidence and procedural lapses during the investigation, basing its decision on these technicalities that had previously identified Ali as a foreigner.
The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, termed it a “grave miscarriage of justice”.
In 2004, the Superintendent of Police in Nalbari initiated an inquiry into Rahim Ali’s nationality, suspecting him to be an illegal migrant from Bangladesh who entered India after March 25, 1971. Sub-Inspector Bipin Dutta, leading the inquiry, found no substantial evidence of Ali being a foreign national.
Despite Ali providing voter lists and residential certificates of his parents and himself, the police proceeded under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1982, but failed to substantiate their claims with documentation.
Following the Supreme Court’s declaration of the IMDT Act as unconstitutional in 2005, Ali’s case was transferred under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, leading to a prolonged legal battle.
On March 19, 2012, the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari, declared Ali a foreigner, citing insufficient evidence of his Indian citizenship and his absence on prescribed dates due to health issues. The Gauhati High Court upheld this decision on November 23, 2015, dismissing Ali’s writ petition on grounds of document discrepancies.
Ali then approached the Supreme Court, which on July 28, 2017, directed the Foreigners Tribunal to re-examine the documents. The Tribunal reaffirmed its earlier decision on November 16, 2017, leading Ali to file a final appeal before the Supreme Court.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court noted that the Foreigners Tribunal placed undue emphasis on Ali’s failure to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act.
The court acknowledged multiple documents provided by Ali, including voter lists from 1965 and 1970, and certificates from village authorities, which were not properly considered by the Tribunal. T
he court found that “minor” discrepancies in the documents, such as variations in spellings and dates, were insufficient to discredit Ali’s claims of Indian citizenship. These errors were deemed common, particularly in rural areas, and could not be grounds to presume falsehood.
The court highlighted several procedural lapses, including a lack of proper notice and opportunity for Ali to present his case, stressing the importance of these processes, especially given the potential consequences of detention and deportation.
The Supreme Court emphasised procedural fairness, noting that the initial investigation and Tribunal proceedings failed to provide Ali with a fair chance to substantively present his case.
Despite the High Court finding a medical certificate submitted by Ali from Swahid Mukunda Kakati Civil Hospital to be fake, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and declared Ali an Indian citizen.
While the Supreme Court’s decision is legally sound, focusing on procedural technicalities rather than an exhaustive evaluation of evidence, it raises concerns about the balance between procedural emphasis and evidence-based justice.
