Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India
Background
This was a batch of 28 connected appeals from persons in Assam (and neighbouring states) who had been declared "foreigners" by Foreigners Tribunals or the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals, in proceedings that were either entirely ex parte or became effectively so after the person stopped participating partway through. The Gauhati High Court had, in each case, upheld the Tribunal's opinion. The common grievance was that these life-altering declarations were made without a meaningful hearing or examination of the material.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that even where a proceeding before a Foreigners Tribunal is ex parte, the Tribunal cannot mechanically declare a person a foreigner merely because they did not appear; it must still independently verify that notice and the "main grounds" of the allegation were properly served, examine the evidence produced by the State, and give a reasoned opinion, as required by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. It emphasised that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution protect "any person" and "no person" respectively, not just citizens, so fair process is owed even to someone whose citizenship is in question, given how severe the consequences (detention, deportation, even statelessness) can be. Since none of the 28 Tribunal opinions or High Court judgments reflected this kind of genuine adjudication, all were set aside and the matters remitted to the Tribunals for a fresh, one-time opportunity, with the appellants required to appear within four weeks and cooperate, and no coercive action to be taken against them meanwhile.
Lesson Learnt
A person cannot be declared a foreigner, with all the serious consequences that follow, through a rubber-stamp process, even in an ex parte case, the tribunal deciding the question must genuinely examine the evidence and give reasons, because basic fairness under the Constitution applies to everyone within India, not only to citizens.