### Ex Parte Foreigner Declarations Require Reasoned Adjudication and Meaningful Opportunity Despite Statutory Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals (both civil and criminal) arising from opinions rendered by Foreigners Tribunals (FT) in Assam, affirmed by the Gauhati High Court.

In all instances, the appellants were declared foreigners in proceedings that were either ex parte or "effectively ex parte".

Category one included persons who never appeared despite notice (e.g., Sabitri Dey, Ajbahar Ali).

Category two involved cases where the High Court independently appreciated evidence for the first time while upholding ex parte orders.

Category three included persons who appeared initially but defaulted during later stages.

The appellants contended they were denied a meaningful opportunity to contest the reference.

1. Whether a Foreigners Tribunal can mechanically declare a person a foreigner in ex parte proceedings without satisfying the minimum requirements of lawful and fair adjudication.

2. Whether the statutory burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, relieves the Tribunal of its obligation to conduct a reasoned inquiry and provide a meaningful opportunity for hearing.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proof on the proceedee to establish they are not a foreigner.

Paragraph 3 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which mandates serving a copy of the "main grounds" of the allegation and providing a "reasonable opportunity" to produce evidence.

Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (2024 INSC 511), which held that Section 9 does not permit proceedings based on bare suspicion and does not exclude natural justice.

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, affirming that the protection of life, liberty, and fair procedure extends to "any person" within India, including suspected foreigners, as established in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

The Court reasoned that while Section 9 shifts the burden of proof, it does not replace the legal process with a mechanical declaration.

A Tribunal remains a quasi-judicial body and must satisfy itself that notice was duly served and that the "main grounds" (not just formal accusations) were disclosed to the proceedee.

Even in ex parte cases, Paragraph 3(16) of the 1964 Order requires a final order to contain a "concise statement of facts and the conclusion".

The Court found that the High Court erred in category two cases by acting as a first-instance forum for evidence appreciation, noting that evidentiary testing (ancestry, linkage documents) must happen at the Tribunal level.

For those who defaulted midway, the Court held that while they must be diligent, the Tribunal cannot dispense with the objective assessment of the State’s evidence and the question referred.

The Court held that the "serious consequence" of being declared a foreigner requires an adjudication that satisfies the constitutional mandate of fairness.

The matters were remitted to the respective Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to the appellants to appear within four weeks and a one-time opportunity to file written statements and evidence, without coercive steps being taken pending the fresh opinions.