Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 730Decided 19 May 2025
Crl.A. No.-002686-002686 - 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5598/2019)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The Foreigners Tribunal in Assam declared the appellant a foreigner who had illegally entered India after the cut-off date of 25.03.1971, a finding upheld by the Gauhati High Court. The appellant, relying on voter-list entries tracing his lineage to his grandfather and a school leaving certificate, argued he was an Indian citizen, and pointed out that after the High Court's order his name had appeared in Assam's 2018 draft NRC and he had obtained a PAN card.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act the burden was on the appellant to prove he was not a foreigner, and the discrepancies found by the Tribunal and High Court in his voter-list documents (mismatched villages, implausible ages, and a suspiciously-issued duplicate school certificate) were sufficient to justify rejecting his claim. Relying on its earlier decision in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, the Court held that inclusion of a person's name in the draft NRC cannot override or annul a prior declaration by the Foreigners Tribunal (the "competent authority") that the person is a foreigner. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was to be treated as a foreigner.

Lesson Learnt

Once the Foreigners Tribunal has declared a person a foreigner, that determination stands unless overturned by a superior court - it cannot be undone merely because the person's name later appears in the draft National Register of Citizens.

Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware