The Supreme Court has ruled that inclusion of a person’s name in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) does not provide immunity from being declared an outsider if a special foreigners’ tribunal has declared such a person a foreign national and liable for deportation.
“…Consequent to the declaration by the tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the
declaration made by the tribunal,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra said.
The bench passed the judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by Rofiqul Hoque, who was directed to be deported by a foreigners’ tribunal in Assam on the ground that he had illegally entered India.
In this case, the foreigners’ tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, had taken up proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946, by an order dated March 4, 2017, and declared Hoque a foreigner who entered India illegally after March 25, 1971.
He had challenged the tribunal’s order before Gauhati High Court, which on November 20, 2017, dismissed his plea, following which he had filed the present appeal.
The appellant took the plea that after the high court had passed the order, he obtained a permanent account number (PAN) that was issued by the income tax department on December 26, 2017, and that his name appeared at serial number 7 in the draft NRC published by the competent authority on July 30, 2018. He said he could no longer be considered a foreigner.
On July 26, 2019, after the appellant’s name figured in the draft NRC, the Supreme Court had directed his release from the detention centre, subject to certain conditions.
However, in the final judgment passed on Monday, the apex court said the tribunal and the high court had rightly discarded his claim on the ground that he was not able to prove his citizenship claim through valid proofs. Under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the person claiming to be an Indian to substantiate
his citizenship.
“Consequently, the burden was on the appellant to establish by cogent documents or other evidence that either he had entered the territory of Assam before March 25, 1971, or his ancestors had entered the territory before the
said date.
“If the tribunal and the high court held that the appellant could not discharge his burden of proving that he is not a foreigner, the view taken by them cannot be held perverse, or manifestly erroneous, or unreasonable, as to warrant interference,” Justice Misra, who authored the judgment, observed.
“We are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed,” the bench said.