By The Sampadak Express
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that a foreigners tribunal (FT) has no authority to review or appeal its own decisions. This judgment, delivered by Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, came in response to a case involving a woman, Rejia Khatun, who was wrongly subjected to a second round of legal proceedings by the Assam government despite being declared an Indian citizen in 2018.
The court set aside an Assam foreigners tribunal’s December 2019 order that had reopened Khatun’s citizenship case, reiterating that such actions violate the legal principle of res judicata, which prevents the repeated litigation of the same issue. The judgment highlights that once an individual’s citizenship status has been definitively determined through due legal process, there should be no further proceedings unless fresh, valid grounds for review are presented.
The case traces back to 2012 when Khatun, a resident of Tezpur, was first subjected to a foreigner’s tribunal proceeding. In 2018, the tribunal concluded that Khatun was an Indian citizen after evaluating both oral and documentary evidence. However, in December 2019, the tribunal entertained a second reference from the state, revisiting the same documents and continuing the proceedings against her.
Despite Khatun challenging this second order, the Gauhati High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, compelling her to approach the Supreme Court. Senior advocate Pijush Kanti Roy, representing Khatun, argued that the tribunal had already conclusively determined her citizenship and reopening the case violated the principle of finality in legal proceedings.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a foreigners tribunal is not empowered to reconsider or appeal its own final orders. It emphasized that the state had already been represented in the original proceedings in 2018 and had failed to challenge the order through appropriate legal channels, such as an appeal to the High Court. Instead, the state attempted to circumvent the process by reopening the case through a second reference.
The court observed that the tribunal, in its second order, attempted to act as an appellate body over its own earlier ruling, a power it does not possess. It further pointed out that the appropriate remedy for the state was to challenge the original 2018 order through a legal appeal, not by reopening the case.
The ruling also criticized the Gauhati High Court for overlooking the critical issue of whether the tribunal had the authority to revisit its own final judgment. By quashing the tribunal’s December 2019 order and the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the legal process had been exhausted, providing Khatun with much-needed closure.
In a significant clarification, the Supreme Court emphasized that its ruling does not open the door for the state or the Union government to challenge the original 2018 order that declared Khatun an Indian citizen. This ensures that Khatun’s legal troubles are now over, putting an end to prolonged uncertainty regarding her citizenship.
The ruling also has broader implications for similar cases handled by foreigners tribunals, which have been embroiled in controversy, especially in Assam. The 1985 Assam Accord sets March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for determining Indian citizenship. As of late 2023, over 97,000 cases remain pending in Assam’s 100 foreigners tribunals, with thousands more appeals awaiting resolution in the Gauhati High Court.
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam, which aims to document legal residents, has also been linked to these tribunals. In 2019, the final NRC excluded over 19 lakh applicants, including both Muslims and Hindus, fueling debates on citizenship rights in the state. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), passed in 2019, allows non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan to apply for Indian citizenship if they arrived before December 31, 2014, due to religious persecution.
This judgment reinforces the principle of legal certainty and finality, safeguarding individuals from repeated and arbitrary challenges to their citizenship status.
