MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIM vs THE STATE OF ASSAM, 2024
Case Title and Citation: MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIM V. THE STATE OF ASSAM 2024 INSC 511 (11 July 2024)
Factual Background
The Appellant, MD. Rahim Ali, faced proceedings initiated in 2006 by the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari, who made a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal (Nalbari) questioning his Indian nationality. The doubt arose because the Appellant could not immediately produce documentary evidence proving his entry into India before January 1, 1966. The Appellant presented evidence, including Electoral Rolls from 1965 and 1970 showing his parents’ residency, and documents showing his own inclusion in voter lists since 1985. Despite appearing before the Tribunal in 2011, the Appellant was held liable for failing to file a written statement, citing serious health issues. Consequently, the Tribunal issued an ex-parte order on March 19, 2012, concluding that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. The Guwahati High Court affirmed this order. Following a Supreme Court directive in 2017 to re-examine the documents produced by the Appellant, the Tribunal again submitted a report reiterating that he was a foreigner.
Issue(s)
- Whether authorities may initiate proceedings to question a person’s citizenship and shift the burden of proof solely based on vague allegations without providing the supporting material or information.
- Whether the rejection of an individual’s documentary evidence of Indian residency based on minor discrepancies in dates and spellings is legally justifiable.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal’s orders (2012 and 2017) and the High Court’s judgment (2015). The Court declared that the Appellant is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner.
Reason for the decision
- Mandatory Material Basis for Initiation: The Supreme Court held that the authorities must possess some material basis or information to suspect that a person is a foreigner before initiating proceedings. The burden of proving non-foreign status under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act shifts to the accused only if they are confronted with the allegation coupled with the material backing such allegation. In this case, the authorities failed to explain how the allegation of the Appellant’s village of origin in Bangladesh came to their knowledge, and no supporting material was produced, making the allegation bald and vague.
- Violation of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that Paragraph 3(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, requires the accused to be served with a copy of the “main grounds,” which the Court clarified means the material on which the allegation is founded, not merely the allegation itself. The authority cannot give a “go-by” to the settled principles of natural justice (Audi alteram partem) by failing to share the collected material. This failure at the inception stage was deemed fatal to the entire exercise.
- Rejection of Minor Discrepancies: The Tribunal wrongly rejected the Appellant’s evidence, such as Electoral Rolls, solely due to minor mismatches in English spellings and discrepancies in dates. The Court observed that these variations are common ground realities in a country with limited literacy, and among rural populations who may not hold meticulously prepared official documents. Penal statutes, such as the Foreigners Act, must be strictly construed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the proceedings constituted a grave miscarriage of justice because they were initiated without any disclosed material basis, violating the fundamental requirement of due process and natural justice. By finding that the minor technical discrepancies in the documents were insufficient to rebut the overwhelming evidence of the Appellant’s residency, the Court ensured procedural fairness and firmly established the Appellant’s status as an Indian citizen.
