Foreigners Tribunal Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Its Own Judgment & Reopen Concluded Issue Of Citizenship: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a Foreigners Tribunal has no power to reopen a case by sitting in appeal over its own concluded judgment.

The Court set aside an order of the Foreigners Tribunal which reopened an inquiry into the citizenship of a person, despite its earlier judgment which held the person to be. an Indian citizen.

As per brief facts, the Foreigners Tribunal passed an order on February 15, 2018, holding that the Appellant is not a foreigner who entered from Bangladesh on or after March 25, 1971.

However, on December 24, 2019, the Tribunal entertained a fresh reference at the instance of the State of Assam. The Tribunal held that it was not divested of power to scrutinise the documents and materials and even findings in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, it directed the Appellant to file a written statement.

Against this order, the Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. This was dismissed by upholding the power of the Tribunal to go into the question notwithstanding the earlier order. Against this, the present SLP was filed.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that in the first order passed, the Assistant Government Advocate appeared for the State and the argument on behalf of it was heard. The Appellant also adduced the evidence. And it was after hearing arguments of the State, and after considering oral evidence and documents produced by her, that the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding in favour of the Appellant.

However, the State did not challenge the first order by approaching the High Court. It also noted that the Counsel appearing for the State could not show under which provision the Tribunal entertained the review. 

The Supreme Court notes: "In the second order dated 24th December, 2019, the Tribunal goes to the extent of holding that it is not divested with the power to scrutinize the documents and even findings in the earlier proceedings. The order indicates that the Tribunal wants to sit over in an appeal against it own concluded judgment and order. Such power can never be exercised by the Tribunal. The remedy of the State Government or for that matter the Central Government was to challenge the order dated 15th February, 2018.

The High Court has missed the real issue. The real issue was whether the Tribunal could have reopened the case by recording a finding that it can scrutinize the findings recorded by the same Tribunal in earlier judgment which had become final. As the Tribunal was powerless to do it, only on that ground, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the impugned order dated 24th December, 2019 in F.T. Case No.2854/2012."

The Court also added that it is now not open for the State or Union to challenge the February 15 order.

Case Details:  REJIA KHATUN @ REZIA KHATUN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.12481/2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Appearances: Pijush Kanti Roy, Sr. Adv.; Mrs. Kakali Roy, Adv. ;Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR; Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Shailendra Kumar Nirmal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Adv (Petitioners) 

Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G; Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv.; Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. ; Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv.; Mr. Karunesh Kr.Shukla, Adv.; Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR (Respondents)

Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR; Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv; Mr. Ankit Agarwal, AOR Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Adv. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Adv (Respondents)

Click Here To Read Order