Failure to consider evidence of all witnesses and misreading documentary exhibits vitiates Tribunal's opinion.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error or perversity by failing to consider the testimony and documents of all witnesses examined by the proceedee

The court held

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s opinion dated 21.09.2018

It also directed

The Court remanded the case to the Foreigners Tribunal-8th, Barpeta, with directions to: (a) re-hear the parties based on the existing record, (b) correctly list and attribute all exhibits to the respective witnesses, and (c) pass a fresh opinion in compliance with Order 3(14) of the Foreigners Tribunals Order

The petitioner was ordered to appear before the Tribunal on or before 30.05.2026

The Court also directed the Govt. of Assam to consider mandatory training for Tribunal members to prevent such procedural lapses

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an opinion dated 21.09.2018 passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal-8th, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 125/2017

p. 2

The Tribunal declared the petitioner an illegal migrant/foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for allegedly entering India after 25.03.1971

p. 2

During the proceedings, the petitioner submitted written statements and examined six witnesses (DW-1 to DW-6), including two Gaonburahs (village headmen) who provided certificates (Ext.E and Ext.F)

p. 3

The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226, alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider the entirety of the evidence

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error or perversity by failing to consider the testimony and documents of all witnesses examined by the proceedee

p. 4 / para. 5

ii.2. Whether the misreading and misattribution of documentary evidence by the Tribunal vitiated its final opinion

p. 4 / para. 6

03Law Applied

The court applied the settled principle of natural justice and trial procedure for Foreigners Tribunals, which mandates that the Tribunal must discuss the evidence of all witnesses and analyze all documentary exhibits

p. 4

Certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows the High Court to set aside and remand a matter if the sub-ordinate Tribunal commits a jurisdictional error or reaches a finding based on perversity

p. 4

Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, regarding the definition of a foreigner

p. 5

Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, specifically Order 3(14) regarding disposal timelines

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 2

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Tribunal’s opinion was fundamentally flawed due to "perversity in misreading the evidence"

p. 4

Specifically, the Tribunal referred to only four out of six witnesses (DW-1 to DW-4), completely ignoring the testimonies and certificates of DW-5 and DW-6 (the Gaonburahs), which were vital for establishing linkage

p. 4

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Tribunal made factual errors by incorrectly attributing specific exhibits (Ext. J, H, and K) to the wrong witnesses, thereby failing to appreciate the documents in their proper perspective

p. 4

The Court concluded that such procedural omissions constituted a jurisdictional error that necessitated a fresh determination

p. 4