On May
19, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling clarifying the
legal standing of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in relation to
decisions made by Foreigners Tribunals under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The
Court held that the mere inclusion of an individual's name in the draft NRC
cannot negate or override a prior declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal that the
individual is a ‘foreigner.’
A
two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra upheld
the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which had refused to interfere with a
2017 order by a Foreigners Tribunal declaring the appellant a foreigner. This
Tribunal ruling had been passed more than a year before the appellant’s name
appeared in the draft NRC list published in 2018 by the competent authority.
The
central legal question before the Court was whether the subsequent inclusion of
the appellant’s name in the draft NRC could invalidate the earlier declaration
made by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative,
affirming that once a person has been declared a foreigner by a competent
Tribunal, their inclusion in the NRC carries no legal significance.
In
delivering the judgment, authored by Justice Manoj Misra, the bench relied on
the precedent set in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), where the
Court had categorically held that the NRC, by itself, is not conclusive proof
of citizenship if a contrary declaration has already been made by a Foreigners
Tribunal. The Court emphasized that while the NRC is a population register, it
cannot be treated as determinative in law when there is an existing legal
finding declaring an individual to be a foreigner.
Furthermore,
the Court observed that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of
proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which places the
responsibility of establishing Indian citizenship squarely on the individual
concerned. The appellant was unable to furnish reliable, consistent, and
corroborated documentary evidence—such as electoral rolls, school certificates,
or land records—to substantiate his claim of being an Indian citizen.
The
judgment reinforces the legal authority of Foreigners Tribunals and clarifies
that their decisions carry greater evidentiary and legal weight than
administrative processes like the NRC. It underscores the principle that
inclusion in the NRC, especially in its draft form, is not determinative of
citizenship and cannot nullify a prior judicial or quasi-judicial finding. This
decision is expected to have broader implications for similar cases where
individuals contest Tribunal declarations on the basis of NRC inclusion.
“In view of the decision of this Court in
Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, 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.”, the court said. In terms of
the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal.
info@adhwaitha.com