LexROFIQUL HOQUE versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 569 : 2025 INSC 730 Rofiqul Hoque v. The Union of India & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025) 19 May 2025 [Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Once the name of the appellant stands included in the draft NRC, whether the order of the Tribunal, declaring him a foreigner, and of the High Court, affirming the order of the Tribunal, be sustained. Headnotes† Foreigners Act, 1946 – s.9 – Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 – r.4A(4) – Appellant was declared foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal – The High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal – Whether the findings returned by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from any legal infirmity as to warrant an interference in exercise of this Court’s power u/Art.136 of the Constitution of India: Held: Section 9 of the 1946 Act places the burden of proof on the proceedee to prove that he is not a foreigner – Consequently, the burden was on the appellant to establish by cogent documents or other evidence that either he himself had entered the territory of Assam prior to 25.03.1971 or his ancestors had entered the territory prior to the said date – The Courts below considered these documents – The probative value of voter list entries were discarded – The school leaving certificate was obtained 10 years after passing from the institution and there appeared no reason for obtaining it after 10 years – Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced – After considering the documents on record along with the evidence produced, the Tribunal and the High Court held that the appellant could not discharge his burden * Author 570 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of proving that he is not a foreigner, the view taken by them cannot be held perverse, or manifestly erroneous, or unreasonable, as to warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India – That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that any material/ admissible evidence was ignored or there was misreading of any of the documents produced by the appellant – Therefore, the view that the findings returned by the Tribunal and the High Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity. [Paras 13, 15, 16 and 17] Foreigners Act, 1946 – s.9 – Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 – r.4A(4) – Whether on inclusion of the name of the appellant in the draft NRC published by the competent authority in the year 2018, the declaration made by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, would be rendered invalid: Held: In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus, 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 inclusion of the name of the appellant in the draft NRC would have no bearing on the order passed by the Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court, declaring the appellant a foreigner. [Paras 27 and 28] Case Law Cited Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India and Others [2019] 8 SCR 669 : (2019) 6 SCC 604 – relied on. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India and Another [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 167 : (2005) 5 SCC 665 – referred to. List of Acts Foreigners Act, 1946; Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. List of Keywords Foreigner; Illegal entry in India; Illegal resident; Draft NRC; Traced ancestry; National Register of Indian citizen in the State of Assam; Illegal migrants. [2025] 6 S.C.R. 571 Rofiqul Hoque v. The Union of India & Ors. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2017 of the Gauhati High Court in WPC No. 2207 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Pijush Kanti Roy, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Kakali Roy, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Sujeet Kumar, Devender Singh, Gautam Kumar. Advs. for the Respondents: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Kanu Agrawal, Shuvodeep Roy, Ms. Prerna Dhal, Ms. Astha Singh, Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Deepayan Dutta. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Manoj Misra, J. 1. Leave grante
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.