The Supreme Court states that citizenship status should be determined through a just and legal procedure.

The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of citizenship status and declared that it must be determined through a fair, lawful, and reasoned process. This ruling came as they set aside the Gauhati High Court's verdicts, which had affirmed orders declaring certain individuals as foreigners. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting equality before law, equal protection of laws, and personal liberty for all individuals within the territory of India.

They clarified that they did not examine the merits of the appellants' citizenship claims and urged the concerned tribunals to make their decisions without being influenced by previous observations made by the High Court or other tribunals. The bench, comprising of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, stated that while the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring that individuals do not misuse the process to claim Indian citizenship, the determination of citizenship status must be done through a fair and lawful process. They also mentioned that the State should not take advantage of procedural delays.

The Court then proceeded to discuss the specifics of the cases in question, which arose from proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam and the Illegal Migrants Tribunals. In all these cases, the appellants were declared as foreigners, and these decisions were affirmed by the High Court. The bench highlighted the constitutional and legal significance of citizenship and foreigner status, citing Article 11 of the Constitution, which grants Parliament the power to make provisions regarding citizenship.

They also mentioned the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners Order, 1964, which provide the statutory mechanism for determining citizenship. The Court clarified that their decision was not intended to benefit individuals who cannot establish their citizenship claims in accordance with the law. Instead, it was to ensure that the process followed in determining citizenship is fair, reasonable, and does not violate constitutional rights.

The bench emphasized that even a foreigner is entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that Article 14 upholds the principles of fair procedure. They stated that State action cannot claim the protection of law if it is arbitrary and that the statutory procedure must be applied in a meaningful manner. The Court noted that the appellants' common grievance was that the opinions against them were rendered in proceedings that were either ex-parte or had become effectively ex-parte.

They also stated that the determination of their status was made without a fair and meaningful opportunity to contest the reference. The Supreme Court clarified that they did not examine the merits of the appellants' citizenship claims and that the evidence produced before the concerned tribunals would be the basis for their decisions. They asked the tribunals to make their decisions independently and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any previous observations made by the High Court or other tribunals.

The Court asked the appellants to appear before the concerned tribunals within four weeks and stated that no coercive steps would be taken against them until fresh opinions were rendered by the tribunals. They also urged the tribunals to decide the references as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date the appellants first appeared before them.