Citizenship Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision

In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark decision on citizenship dispute resolution. The judgment, which carries wide-reaching implications for citizens’ rights, sets a precedent for future legal cases in the realm of citizenship. Stay tuned to discover the details and implications of this groundbreaking decision by the apex court.

Facts

• Decision on perceived conflict between sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 3 and paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
• The interpretation of the 2003 Rules in relation to the conflict between these provisions.
• Resolution of the conflict regarding the 2003 Rules.
• Key considerations in determining the interpretation of the rules in question.

Also Read: Case Summary: Disputed Share Acquisition Involving Dr. Suresh Anne

Issue

• The appellants suggest creating an appellate forum for deciding citizenship disputes in Assam.
• Articles 5 to 9 of the Constitution define citizens of India at the time of its commencement.
• Article 10 allows for their continued citizenship, subject to Parliament’s laws.

Also Read: Landmark Judgment by Supreme Court on Toll Collection Dispute

Analysis

• The Local Registrar of Citizen Registration scrutinizes applications received under sub-paragraph (2) and prepares a consolidated list of persons whose names appear in electoral rolls up to March 24, 1971, or in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, as well as descendants of such persons.
• The Tribunal submits its opinion to the specified officer or authority after hearing the case as soon as practical.
• Prayers for examination of witnesses or production of documents may be refused by the Tribunal if made for vexation, delay, or similar purposes.
• The procedure for compulsory registration of citizens is prescribed by law.
• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act provides special provisions for persons covered by the Assam Accord.
• Article 11 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make laws regarding acquisition and termination of citizenship.
• The Citizenship Act, 1955, provides for acquisition of citizenship through various means like birth, registration, naturalisation, and incorporation of territory.
• Section 14A of the Citizenship Act allows the Central Government to compulsorily register citizens and issue national identity cards.
• The Tribunal hears necessary persons, allows representation, production of evidence, appearance through legal practitioners or authorized persons, and takes evidence from the concerned Superintendent of Police.
• Rules are in place for registration of individuals of Indian origin who came to Assam within specific periods and have been declared foreigners, with implications on electoral rolls.
• The registering authority must comply with the Tribunal’s opinion on the status of individuals seeking registration as foreigners in Assam.
• The 2006 Order has been promulgated in place of following the opinion of the Tribunal on other requirements.
• Rule 4A of the 2003 Rules relates to the National Register of Indian Citizens in Assam.
• The amendment Order required the Tribunal to ensure there were sufficient grounds before proceeding; opinions by such Tribunals hold primacy.
• The IMDT Act was struck down due to lacking a burden of proof provision, affecting the State’s ability to manage illegal migrant influx.
• Appeals from the Tribunal’s decisions can be made within sixty days to adjust the NRC in Assam.
• The Foreigners Act and the Citizenship Act, along with their rules, must be read harmoniously; the Tribunal’s opinion is final and binding.
• The Local Registrar must inform individuals/families about any directives, with the Tribunal’s opinion to be given within sixty days of reference.
• The 2006 Order was unnecessary in light of preceding Acts and Court directions, including sending illegal immigrants out of the country.
• Any error by these bodies cannot be challenged except on jurisdictional matters.
• The FRA requires the Tribunal to adjudicate on claims and objections under the Schedule.
• The 1964 Order under the Foreigners Act is a significant provision; it hadn’t been strengthened as directed despite evident illegal migration issues.
• The execution of the Tribunal’s opinion is crucial, as it has civil consequences and cannot be contested without jurisdictional error.
• The expression ‘Competent Authority’ in the context of the 1964 Order and the 2003 Rules is vital for the exclusion of illegal migrants or foreigners from lists.
• Persons classified as illegal migrants/foreigners by the Competent Authority cannot be included in consolidated lists.
• The Tribunal’s opinion is quasi-judicial and operates as res judicata under specific contexts.
• Detailed judgments are not required, but opinions must state facts and reasons, ensuring expeditious case disposal.
• The Schedule mandates scrutinizing applications, preparing lists based on historical records, and ensuring fact-based inclusions.
• Legal recourse under Paragraph 8 of the Schedule can be taken for unsatisfactory decisions in the NRC process.
• Acknowledgement of Tribunals’ role and the need for accurate determinations regarding foreign nationals in the NRC process.
• Maintaining harmony between the Acts and rules, and emphasizing legal compliance in addressing demographic issues.
• In Sarbananda Sonowal (II) vs Union of India, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order 2006 was struck down for various reasons.
• The opinion/order of the Tribunal or Registering Authority constitutes determination of rights under the statute and operates as a bar to subsequent re-determination by the same authority.
• Res judicata principle applies to quasi-judicial orders.
• Quasi-judicial bodies are required to make an enquiry before arriving at a conclusion.
• Quasi-judicial bodies have legal authority to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and duty to act judicially.
• Decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are binding until reversed in appeal or writ proceedings.
• Procedures for Tribunals under the 1964 Order were considered just, fair, and reasonable in Sarbananda Sonowal (I).
• The Division Bench in Sarbananda Sonowal (II) observed the functioning of Tribunals in the State of Assam.

Also Read: Landmark Case on Overcharging of Medicinal Drugs: Supreme Court Rules Against Manufacturer-Distributor Group

Decision

• Notice should be served expeditiously, not later than ten days of receiving the reference
• Notice should be served by the Central Government or any competent authority
• Emphasis on timely communication and action upon receiving reference

Case Title: ABDUL KUDDUS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: C.A. No.-005012-005012 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement