Service of Foreigners Tribunal notice in official state language satisfies due process despite lack of English translation.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the non-service of notice in English, despite service in the official state language (Assamese), caused prejudice to the petitioner or was fatal to the state's case

The court held

The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the service of notice in Assamese was substantial compliance and did not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

It also directed

The review petition was dismissed, and an inadvertent typographical error in the previous order (dated 16.12.2025) was corrected pro tanto.

01Facts

The petitioner was declared a foreigner of the post-1971 stream via an ex parte opinion by the Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, on 10.05.2018.

p. 3

The petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal despite notice being served on 17.03.2018.

p. 4, 9

The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition in 2025, which was dismissed by the High Court due to a delay of over seven years.

p. 4

Upon approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner alleged he was never served "proper notice." The Supreme Court granted liberty to file a review petition to address this factual issue.

p. 4

In the review, the petitioner admitted receipt of notice in Assamese but contended it was invalid because it was not bilingual (English and Assamese) as required by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

pp. 5-6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the non-service of notice in English, despite service in the official state language (Assamese), caused prejudice to the petitioner or was fatal to the state's case

p. 11 / para. 23

ii.2. Whether the lack of a specific warning in the notice regarding the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act vitiated the proceedings

p. 6 / para. 7(d)

03Law Applied

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proof on the person suspected of being a foreigner to prove their Indian citizenship.

p. 10

Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which stipulates that notice shall be served in English and the official language of the state.

p. 10

Full Bench precedent in State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013), specifically paragraph 102(iii) regarding service in the official language.

p. 12

Legal maxims actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), ex visceribus actus (construction of the Act as a whole), and ut res magis valeat quam pereat (validating rather than invalidating a thing).

p. 15

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 Section 8

04Reasoning

The court found that the petitioner was a Grade-IV employee in a government school, leading to a presumption that he could read and understand Assamese, the official language in which the notice was served.

p. 11

The court observed that the notice clearly informed the petitioner of the allegations and his duty to appear and prove his citizenship.

pp. 9-10

Applying a "purposeful reading" of Order 3(4), the court harmonized the provision with the Full Bench directions in Moslem Mondal, holding that service in the state’s official language fulfills the core objective of due process.

pp. 14-15

The court rejected the petitioner's new plea of prejudice, noting he failed to explain why he took no steps for seven years after being released from judicial custody in 2018.

pp. 16-17

Small typographical errors in previous orders were deemed inconsequential to the validity of the notice.

p. 15, 25

05Holding

The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the service of notice in Assamese was substantial compliance and did not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

p. 25 / para. 42

The review petition was dismissed, and an inadvertent typographical error in the previous order (dated 16.12.2025) was corrected pro tanto.

p. 26 / para. 48

LawLens.Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF