NRC and quasi-judicial proceedings: All you need to know about Foreigners’ Tribunals


The last rundown of the National Registry of Citizens (NRC) in Assam was closed on 31st August 2019. Nonetheless, even after the multi-organized interaction, there were still around 2 million individuals left outside its domain. The humongous program led under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and observed by the Supreme Court of India, included generous regulatory expenses as well as the deficiency of lives and rejection of individuals to guarantee their essential citizenship rights. The whole cycle of the ID of ‘outsiders’ has genuine repercussions on the existence of these individuals. It has been contended that since the pandemic, the extra-normal deferral in settling the arguments about citizenship shows a ‘remarkable absence of respect for individuals who have been barred’. In this specific situation, it gets basic to comprehend the cycle of the legal goal of disagreements about citizenship.

In terms of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 citizens of Assam are required to demonstrate that they or their ancestors may have entered the country before 12 PM March 24, 1971, by registering with the Office of International Registration. The fate of the remaining persons is to be determined by a legal entity known as the “Foreigner Tribunal” under the Foreign Courts Act, 1946 after this “Act of 1946”.

The functioning of these councils has been compromised by unnecessary key controls, and from now on, they cease to be rational and unfair in following procedures. These councils ridicule the standards of fairness and do not give thoughtful consideration to a distressed individual. In this way, the functioning of these organizations requires thorough scrutiny of the principles of authoritative law.


The Foreign Tribunal(FT) is the court with a unique locale to hear matters concerning the assurance of citizenship. Rather than different courts which have been set up under Article 323(b) of the Constitution, Foreign Tribunals are the lone councils set up through a leader request. These were set up under the Foreigner’s Tribunal Order, 1964 given as per the 1946 Act. Principally two reports are fundamental for demonstrating citizenship, the primary indicating that candidates guardians or precursors were living in Assam in 1971 or before, for example, land records, permit, financial balances and so on, and the second demonstrating that the candidate is the relative of such progenitor, for example, birth testament, board/college archive, electing roll and so on For any individual who is prohibited from NRC on the record of not outfitting these archives, there are two different ways to bid the FT. First and foremost, the individuals who have been rejected from the NRC can straightforwardly record an allure here, and besides, the cases can be alluded to by these councils by the Assam Border Police and the Election Commission(EC). The EC can skeptically examine the elector’s list cautiously and mark farfetched citizens to allude to the council which makes trouble for an enormous number of individuals as their citizenship gets dicey. These cases must be then controlled by the single appointed authority seat of the FT.

The legitimacy and the validity of this tribunal were challenged as of late on account of Abdul Kuddus v. Association of India. The applicants contended that an opinion delivered by the Foreigners Tribunal has no more importance than a leader’s request. They said that the council’s discoveries can’t be seen as last and can be tested in a courtroom that will correct the regulatory blunders considering proof accessible. They likewise expressed that the procedures under the 1946 Act were unique to NRC arranged under the Citizenship Act, 1955 was extraordinary. While drawing the differentiation between the two cycles of NRC and procedures of the FT, they argued that the previous was an interaction freely observed by the Supreme Court and the cases before the unfamiliar council are questions relating to who is an outsider according to Foreigner’s Tribunal Act, 1946 and henceforth, res judicata can’t matter.

The Supreme Court, while excusing the appeal, expressed that the “opinion” of the Foreigners Tribunal was to be treated as a “Quasi-Judicial” and it said that the 1946 and 1955 Act alongside the Citizenship, 2003 standards were to be perused together.


Being a quasi-judicial body in nature, there is an impressive unwinding given to these tribunals to lead their methodology while applying the principles of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Evidence Act, rather than customary courts. According to the 1946 demonstration, the court can direct its system. Paragraph 4(c) of the 1964 request enables the court to analyze observers and archives. Nonetheless, much of the time the creation of witnesses was troublesome since the courts were situated far and witnesses would not like to bear the expenses of showing up. Under the Foreign Court Act (Amendment) 2019, any oppressed person who did not get his or her name from the NRC can also go to court. Earlier the state government had the power to go to court against the suspect, but now, even the oppressed person has the opportunity to express his opinion within 60 days of requesting avoidance by the NRC.

It should be noted that the jurisdiction of these courts only states whether the person is an immigrant under Section 2A of the 1946 Act. However, Amnesty’s international report notes and criticizes the functioning of these courts as they end up branding these people as ‘illegal immigrants’, while FT has no power to determine that illegality. In a recent decision by Assam Public Works v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has upheld FT’s decision to declare the children of skeptical voters as non-citizens. This violation of human rights by abuse of power by the Tribunal is said to be justified if it is stated that nothing was said in the Act on this and that the SC decision was reversed. Also, in the past, these courts have traditionally held permanent detention. Following a written request, the Supreme Court ordered that the individuals be released from detention camps after three years and paid two dollars bail, 1 lakh each as a bond. However, this is futile as many people are unable to access this money and are imprisoned indefinitely.


As quasi-judicial activities are not required to be strictly in specification with the procedure of law but it is essential to follow the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are an important and integral part of common law and cannot be removed by any adjudicatory body. The principle of natural justice includes the rule against bias, the rule of Audi Alteram Partem, and reasoned decision. Section 3(1) of the 1946 Act says that the court will serve notification to the individual being claimed as an outsider referring to the grounds of charge. The same was maintained in the case of the State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal and ors. The court seldom follows this in any case and inadequately drafted notices are served to the people concerned. Most of the time, the notification is not served to the individual concerned. If people do not appear before the tribunal due to the inability to understand the notice for more than 10 days after the notice has been issued to file a written statement, the tribunal passes an ex- parte order. A reasonable option to make a representation is seriously restricted by these extreme ex-parte orders which are not adhering to the principles of natural justice.


The foreign Tribunals are having extreme power to accept or reject the evidence presented by the petitioner but they are bound to accept the evidence presented by the police. By the amendment of 2019, the burden of proof was shifted to the residents. This has its roots from the historical period as the court in case Sarbananda Sonowal v. UOI held that illegal movement represents a danger of outside hostility upon the country and therefore the weight of proving citizenship will consistently lie upon the individual blamed for being a non-resident. Presently, they need to assemble reports identified with birth, schooling, and land ownership. Residents are asked to present their original and certified documents as no photocopies will be accepted. The major problem with documents is that they are originally written in Bengali and later translated into English. It is quite unfair to ask rural residents to gather these documents to prove their residency.

If the Foreign Tribunal doesn’t appear to be happy with the reports introduced or says that documents like marriage certificates and so on are not enough, it can end the citizenship of an individual. It has been held in a plethora of cases that the quasi-judicial bodies, being the courts of the first occurrence, should act decently, and regardless of whether there is no legal necessity for giving reasons, such a prerequisite can be perused by the goodness of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.


In light of the structure of liberal vote-based standards, the Indian Constitution conceives a fair living for every one of its residents. It is relevant that the chief or different bodies don’t interfere with the undertakings of the legal executive or judges in quasi-judicial bodies to guarantee that these objectives are accomplished. In the current case, the FT is the quasi-judicial body set up to decide the subject of citizenship of individuals pronounced ‘outsiders’. The procedures before these bodies ought to follow the standards set up by the courtroom. Notwithstanding, it is seen that the FT doesn’t act genuinely as per justice. There is a pressing requirement for the Parliament and the higher legal executive to make remedial moves in such a manner that corrective actions are achieved in this regard.

Latest news

Related news