On Monday, July 13, 2026, the Supreme Court pronounced a significant ruling regarding the assessment of citizenship and foreigner status. The court mandated that this determination must be conducted through a “fair, lawful and reasoned” process. This decision came as the apex court set aside 27 judgments from the Gauhati High Court that had declared the appellants as foreigners, subsequently remanding the cases to the relevant Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.
A Bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in preventing individuals ineligible for Indian citizenship from fraudulently acquiring such status. However, they highlighted that the severe repercussions of being labeled a foreigner must be preceded by a process that aligns with constitutional guarantees.
Justice Nath, author of the judgment, stated, “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…” The Tribunal is required to ensure that the individual received a fair opportunity, that the primary grounds were disclosed, and that the evidence supports the reference, concluding from the recorded material.
Previously, the High Court had dismissed the appeals against the Foreigners Tribunals’ decisions, noting that none of the appellants appeared before the tribunals despite receiving notices. With no written statements or supporting documents from the appellants, the tribunals claimed they had no choice but to affirm the reference.
The Supreme Court clarified that remanding the cases does not imply an endorsement of the appellants’ claims to Indian citizenship. Instead, it aims to ensure that serious implications of being declared a foreigner arise only from legally sound adjudications that adhere to principles of fairness.
“Even in a case where the proceedee fails to appear despite service, the Tribunal continues to act as a quasi-judicial forum. It must satisfy itself that notice was duly served in accordance with law…” the Bench remarked.
The apex court further reiterated that while Section 9 of the 1946 Act places the burden of proof on the individual to demonstrate their non-foreigner status, this does not absolve the Tribunal from its duty to conduct a lawful and reasoned adjudication rather than resorting to a mechanical approach.
Moreover, the Bench affirmed that every individual, including foreigners, is entitled to the guarantees outlined in Article 14, which ensures equality before the law, and Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty. These rights are not exclusively applicable to Indian citizens.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a person could be declared a foreigner through ex parte proceedings solely based on their absence, especially when there were government records supporting their claim to Indian citizenship.
This legal battle originated from a May 9, 1997, ruling by the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, which labeled Sabitri Dey and her husband, Sambhu Dey, as illegal migrants after their non-appearance at a summons. The petitioners argued that they were unaware of the proceedings and contended that the tribunal’s conclusion was primarily based on hearsay testimony rather than credible evidence.
The petitioners disclosed that they had only become aware of the tribunal’s ruling in 2019, prompting their appeal to the Gauhati High Court. They cited the lack of legal representation or an amicus curiae, depriving them of a fair hearing, thus violating their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite their claims, the Gauhati High Court dismissed their challenge in 2020, criticizing the petitioners for their “utter negligence” in approaching the court nearly 23 years after the tribunal’s initial order.
