Courts will not reopen an ex parte illegal-migrant opinion after unexplained decades-long delay.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the ex parte opinion dated 19 July 1991 passed by the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in Case No. DDT 7/89/325-326, declaring him an illegal migrant who had entered India from East Pakistan/Bangladesh after the relevant date.

The petitioner contended that the Tribunal had not determined his date or stream of entry, had relied on an unproved affidavit, and had failed to properly serve notice. He also relied on an alleged Certificate of Registration issued to his father as an Indian citizen.

The State opposed the petition on the grounds of a delay of approximately 25 years and supported the Tribunal’s opinion.

The Tribunal records showed that notice dated 14 March 1989 was served on the petitioner’s wife, an adult family member, on 26 April 1989; the petitioner thereafter appeared before the Tribunal, received relevant documents, and filed a hazira, but subsequently ceased appearing.

The Tribunal relied on the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, including the Enquiry Officer, and on a photocopy of an affidavit allegedly produced by the petitioner stating that he had entered India from Bangladesh.

The writ petition was filed after the impugned opinion had remained unchallenged for several years.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay, laches and the petitioner’s failure to challenge the ex parte opinion for approximately 25 years.

Whether service of notice on the petitioner’s wife and the petitioner’s subsequent appearance before the Tribunal constituted valid service and afforded him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Whether the absence of any specification in the notice regarding the petitioner’s “stream of entry” invalidated the proceedings before the IM(D)T.

Whether the alleged citizenship registration of the petitioner’s father established the petitioner’s Indian citizenship or disclosed a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226.

Whether the ex parte opinion required interference merely because citizenship is an important or valuable right.

The Court exercised certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, under which it could examine jurisdictional error, procedural illegality or breach of natural justice, but could not reappreciate evidence as an appellate or revisional court, relying on Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 16 SCC 462.

The proceedings were governed by the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder; Section 3(1)(c) concerned persons entering India on or after 25 March 1971 without valid travel documents, while Section 8(a) provided for the relevant reference procedure.

The Court distinguished Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which deals with specified streams of entry between 1 January 1966 and 25 March 1971, from the statutory framework applicable to the present IM(D)T reference.

It relied on Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 818, for the principle that natural justice cannot be used to create a farcical situation or defeat the statutory object of identifying and deporting foreigners.

The Court distinguished Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 694, and Asmina Begum @ Aspina v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1216/2019, on their facts and statutory context.

The Court held that the petitioner had actual knowledge of the proceedings because notice was served on his wife, he appeared before the Tribunal, received the relevant materials, and acknowledged the proceedings through the order sheet and hazira.

His subsequent failure to participate and his unexplained delay in approaching the High Court substantially undermined his plea of denial of natural justice.

The omission to mention a particular stream of entry did not vitiate the reference because the proceeding under the IM(DT) Act concerned whether the petitioner was a foreigner who had entered India on or after 25 March 1971; the stream-related requirements under Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act were not applicable.

The alleged Certificate of Registration of the petitioner’s father was neither sufficiently legible nor adequately connected to the petitioner, since the names and particulars were not shown to relate to the same individual, and the document had not been properly established before the Tribunal.

The Court therefore found no jurisdictional error, procedural violation or other ground for exercising certiorari jurisdiction.

It further observed that the Tribunal had considered the State’s evidence and that the petitioner had failed to rebut it.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

The consequences of the impugned opinion were permitted to follow, but the Court clarified that the judgment would not preclude the petitioner from seeking any benefit available under a statutory enactment or Government notification.

The Tribunal records were directed to be returned to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.