Gauhati HC Sets Aside Post-1971 Foreigner Finding, Gives Assam Man Fresh Chance After Notice Alleged 1966–71 Entry

The petitioner challenged the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Sonitpur’s opinion dated 12 December 2018 declaring him a foreigner who entered India from Bangladesh on or after 25 March 1971.

The reference notice, however, alleged illegal entry between 1 January 1966 and 25 March 1971.

The petitioner relied on voter lists, a school certificate and a Gaonburah’s certificate to support his claim to Indian citizenship and asserted that discrepancies in names and ages had been explained.

The High Court called for the Tribunal record and, without examining the merits of the evidence or opinion, considered whether the petitioner should receive a further opportunity before the Tribunal.

Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 defines a “foreigner” as a person who is not an Indian citizen; paragraph 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 empowers a Tribunal to determine whether a referred person is or is not a foreigner.

Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides the special framework for persons who entered Assam from the specified territory: persons entering before 1 January 1966 are deemed citizens, while those entering between 1 January 1966 and 25 March 1971 are subject to registration and related consequences; those entering on or after 25 March 1971 are to be declared foreigners.

Relying on Rukia Begum Barbhuiya @ Rukia Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 (4) GLT 1208, the Court treated a reference as requiring determination of whether the person is a foreigner under the statutory framework, including the relevant entry-date categories.

The Tribunal record showed that the notice alleged entry during the 1 January 1966–25 March 1971 period, whereas the impugned opinion declared the petitioner a post-25 March 1971 foreigner.

Applying Rukia Begum, the Court considered that the petitioner should have another opportunity to prove his citizenship and that he was not a post-1971 entrant.

The Court expressly refrained from assessing the evidence or the Tribunal’s reasoning on the merits, leaving those matters for the Tribunal on remand.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Tribunal by 4 December 2026, without fresh notice, and could file additional evidence-on-affidavit; the Tribunal was to pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law.

On appearance, the petitioner was to apply for bail, to be considered in accordance with law, with bail to remain valid for 30 days beyond the date of the fresh opinion.

If he failed to appear within the prescribed time, the Tribunal could proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the High Court’s order.