2019 (5) TMI 1856 - SC - Indian Laws

Citizenship status of persons residing in the State of Assam - detection and deportation of illegal migrants - HELD THAT - Summary opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal, it is submitted, is not a detailed order and hence, is not a decision or judgment. Based on the said submission, it is argued that the opinion formed by the Foreigners Tribunal is not an order of the Competent Authority for the purposes of sub-para (2) to paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 2003 Rules. Further, the opinion formed by the Foreigners Tribunal being an executive order would not operate as res judicata. It is highlighted that in some cases, persons who have been declared to be a foreigner under the Foreigners Act have been included in the draft National Register of Citizens for the State of Assam, while in others siblings and close blood relations of such persons have been named in the draft National Register of Citizens. It is averred that in these cases of contradictions, an aggrieved person should be entitled to take recourse to paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the 2003 Rules. The Foreigners Act and the Citizenship Act including the Rules framed under the two Acts have to be read harmoniously as both the Acts are inter-related and sister enactments. Pertinently, the Rules framed under the Citizenship Act are subordinate legislation. The expression Competent Authority used in sub-para (2) to paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 2003 Rules would obviously and without a doubt has reference to the duly constituted authority under the Foreigners Act - On receipt of such reference, the Tribunal has to submit its opinion/decision, which opinion/decision in terms of Explanation to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is final and binding. Decisions of the Tribunal have been given primacy. Thus, the Competent Authority referred to in sub-para (2) to paragraph 3 of the Schedule would be, without a doubt, the Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners Act i.e. the 1964 Order. The opinion/order of the Tribunal, or the order passed by the Registering Authority based upon the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal, as the case may be, can be challenged by way of writ proceedings. Thus, it would be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal and/or the consequential order passed by the Registering Authority would not operate as res judicata. Both the opinion of the Tribunal and the Order of the Registering Authority result in determination of rights/status under the statute and by an authority after a contest on the merits which would necessarily operate as a bar to subsequent proceedings before the same authority for re-determination of the same issue/question - Merely because the trial is summary in nature cannot be a ground to reject it as unjust or unfair. Further, it was held in RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS 2006 (11) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT that when civil or evil consequences ensue by reason of an act done by the statutory authority, principles of natural justice must be followed. The Act and power of judicial review vested with the constitutional courts provide sufficient safeguards, in the present context. The contention of the Appellants on the perceived conflict pertaining to the adjudication on the citizenship status of persons is rejected - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict between sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 3 and paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
2. Proposal to create an appellate forum for disputes regarding citizenship status in Assam.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict between sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 3 and paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003:

The court addressed the perceived conflict between sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 3 and paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the 2003 Rules. Sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 3 mandates that persons declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the Competent Authority shall not be included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Paragraph 8 provides a right of appeal to those dissatisfied with the decisions of claims and objections under paragraph 7, enabling them to appeal before the designated Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

The court emphasized that the Foreigners Tribunal's opinion is a quasi-judicial order and not merely an administrative one. It highlighted that the Tribunal's decision, based on principles of natural justice, is final and binding, and operates as res judicata, meaning it bars subsequent proceedings on the same issue. The court rejected the contention that the Tribunal's opinion is an executive order and not a judgment, affirming that the Tribunal's decisions have civil consequences and are subject to judicial review.

The court clarified that paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the 2003 Rules applies only in cases where the Foreigners Tribunal has not already adjudicated on the issue of nationality. If the Tribunal has already made a determination, an appeal under paragraph 8 is not maintainable. The determination by the Tribunal is final and binding on the Registering Authority and the Local Registrar, and does not allow for a second round of litigation before the same authority.

2. Proposal to create an appellate forum for disputes regarding citizenship status in Assam:

The appellants suggested that the court should create an appellate forum for deciding disputes regarding citizenship status in Assam. However, this proposal was not pressed in the written submissions and arguments. The court declined to give such a direction, stating that it would encroach upon the legislative domain reserved for the legislature. The court noted that this is not a case of unoccupied legislation, and there is no complete absence of active law to provide for effective enforcement of basic human rights.

Conclusion:

The court disposed of the appeals, rejecting the contentions regarding the perceived conflict in the adjudication of citizenship status and the creation of an appellate forum. The court affirmed the finality and binding nature of the Foreigners Tribunal's decisions and emphasized the harmonious reading of the Foreigners Act and the Citizenship Act. The principles of res judicata apply to the Tribunal's decisions, ensuring that the same issue cannot be re-litigated before the same authority.