On 11th July, the Supreme Court of India set aside the decision of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court order and declared the appellant Rahim Ali as an Indian citizen. OpIndia accessed the judgment in the case. The apex court found discrepancies in the evidence and procedural lapses during the investigation. The court based its decisions on these technicalities that had identified him as a foreigner. The two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah called it a “grave miscarriage of Justice”.
Chronology of Events
Initial Investigation (2004-2006)
In 2004, the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari, initiated an inquiry into his nationality. Based on the findings, a case was filed against Rahim Ali. It was suspected that Ali was an illegal migrant from Bangladesh and entered India after 25th March 1971. Sub-Inspector Bipin Dutta led the initial inquiry into the matter. The inquiry did not find any substantial evidence of Ali being a foreign national.
He claimed that he was an Indian citizen and provided voter lists and residential certificates of his parents and himself. However, police proceeded with registering the case under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1982. The police could not provide a substantial chain of documentation to prove he was not an Indian national.
In 2005, the Supreme Court of India declared the IMDT Act unconstitutional in the Sarbananda Sonowal case. As the case against Ali was registered under the said Act, his case was then registered under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 leading to a long legal battle.
Foreigners Tribunal Order (2012)
On 19th March 2012, the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari, declared Rahim Ali as a foreigner. The decision was based on the fact that Ali allegedly failed to provide sufficient evidence that he was an Indian citizen. Furthermore, Ali did not appear before the Tribunal on the prescribed dates leading to an ex-parte decision. Ali claimed that he failed to appear because of serious health conditions and provided medical certificates for the same. The Tribunal, however, relied on procedural technicalities over the evidence.
High Court Order (2015)
The Tribunal’s decision was challenged by Ali in the Gauhati High Court. On 23rd November 2015, the High Court upheld the Trubinal’s decision and dismissed his writ petition. The High Court said that the documents submitted by Ali had discrepancies such as variations in spelling and dates.
Supreme Court Intervening Order (2017)
Ali then approached the Supreme Court of India against the decision. On 28th July 2017, the apex court directed the Foreigners Tribunal to re-examine the documents presented by Ali and sought a fresh report. The Tribunal reaffirmed the earlier decision on 16th November 2017 declaring Ali a foreign national. Ali then filed a final appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Detailed Supreme Court Order
Failure to Discharge the Burden of Proof
In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India noted that the Foreigners Tribunal placed undue emphasis on Ali’s failure to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. The court said Ali had provided multiple documents including the voter list from 1965 and 1970. Furthermore, certificates from village authorities were also provided which, according to the Supreme Court, were not properly considered by the Tribunal.
Discrepancies in Evidence
The apex court said that there were “minor” discrepancies in the documents that Ali provided including variations in spellings and dates. The court said that these “minor” errors were not sufficient to discredit the claims laid by Ali that he was an Indian citizen. The court added that such discrepancies in the official documents are “common”, especially in the rural areas. The court stated these discrepancies cannot be considered as grounds to presume falsehood, especially when overall evidence supports the claims.
Procedural Lapses
The court said there were several procedural lapses in both the initial investigation and the proceedings by the Tribunal including a lack of proper notice and opportunity to Ali to present his case. The court said that these processes are essential especially when the appellant may face consequences including detention and deportation.
Judgment Based on Technicality, Not Documents
The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Rahim Ali’s case is based on procedural technicalities and discrepancies rather than an exhaustive evaluation of the evidence available. Though the approach is legally sound, it raises concerns about the balance between procedural emphasis and evidence-based justice.
The apex court reviews the procedural aspects of the case specifically under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. It places the burden of proof on the individual rather than the investigation agencies. The court said that the lower courts and the Foreigners Tribunal did not provide Ali procedural fairness. The judgment noted, “The procedural lapses and the failure to consider the appellant’s health and inability to present his case substantively undermine the fairness of the proceedings.”
Though the apex court’s decision highlighted procedural inadequacies, the decision is still based on technicalities rather than a comprehensive analysis of the evidence. The documents, including voter lists and certificates that indicated his family’s long-standing presence in India, were acknowledged but not deeply scrutinised by the relevant agencies for their authenticity.
The judgment implied, “The court’s focus on procedural fairness is commendable, but it must be coupled with a thorough assessment of the evidence to ensure substantive justice.”
It must be noted that during a hearing in the High Court, the medical certificate submitted by Ali from Swahid Mukunda Kakati Civil Hospital, Nalbari dated 24th April 2012 was found to be fake. The High Court held that the appellant had taken recourse to falsehood with the production of a fake medical certificate. Despite this fact, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the High Court order and declare Ali an Indian citizen. However, the right course of action should have been to order an inquiry by a fresh committee into his documents and claims.
While it is true that every citizen of India deserves justice, it is also essential that if wrong has happened in the past, it gets corrected by the authorities and the justice system. Assam is facing demographic challenges due to the influx of illegal Bangladeshis and it is the duty of the authorities and the justice system to ensure such individuals get deported back to their country.
