The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding two key legal principles. First, it affirmed that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden lies entirely on the individual to prove Indian citizenship, and the lower courts’ findings that this burden was not discharged were legally sound. Second, it ruled that inclusion of a person’s name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) does not automatically nullify or override a prior quasi-judicial declaration of foreigner status by a Foreigners Tribunal. This principle is mandated by Rule 4A(4) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, read with Paragraph 3(2) of its Schedule, and affirmed by the precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India. The Tribunal’s declaration thus remains valid and binding.
Facts Of The Case:
Rofiqul Hoque faced proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946 initiated by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar, Assam, alleging he was an illegal foreigner residing in India. The Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, declared him a foreigner who entered India illegally after March 25, 1971, via an order dated March 4, 2017. Hoque challenged this order before the Guwahati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but his writ petition was dismissed on November 20, 2017. To support his claim of Indian citizenship, Hoque submitted evidence including a duplicate school leaving certificate listing his parents and date of birth (1996), and extracts of voter lists for the Gauripur Assembly Constituency from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016. He claimed lineage from his grandfather, Joynal Abdin Seikh, whose name appeared in pre-1971 voter lists. Both the Tribunal and the High Court found significant discrepancies in this evidence, including variations in the recorded village of residence for his ancestors across different voter lists, inconsistencies in ages, doubts about the school certificate’s authenticity (issued 10 years after leaving school without headmaster testimony), and the absence of his mother’s name in the 1993 list. Consequently, they held he failed to discharge the burden of proving citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. Subsequently, Hoque’s name appeared in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) published on July 30, 2018, leading to his interim release by the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The case originated from proceedings initiated by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar, Assam, under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, declared Rofiqul Hoque a foreigner on March 4, 2017. Hoque challenged this order before the Guwahati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (W.P.(C) No. 2207/2017), which was dismissed on November 20, 2017. Subsequently, Hoque was detained. Nearly two years later, he filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (Crl.) No. 5598/2019) before the Supreme Court, seeking permission to submit additional documents (including his inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC). On July 3, 2019, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and issued notices. On July 26, 2019, citing his appearance in the draft NRC, the Court ordered his interim release from detention, pending final disposal. After hearing arguments on the merits and the legal effect of the NRC inclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on May 19, 2025, vacating the interim release order and upholding the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Overturns Contributory Negligence in Fatal Bike Crash, Awards Full Compensation
Court Observation:
The Court observed that the burden to prove citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, rests solely on the individual, and Rofiqul Hoque failed to discharge this burden due to irreconcilable discrepancies in his evidence—including material contradictions in ancestral residences across voter lists (Daobhangi vs. Kekurchar villages), inconsistent age entries over decades, and an unreliable duplicate school certificate issued ten years post-schooling without corroborative testimony. The Tribunal and High Court’s findings rejecting this evidence were legally sound and required no interference under Article 136. Crucially, the Court held that inclusion in the draft NRC (2018) cannot override a prior quasi-judicial declaration of foreigner status by a Foreigners Tribunal, as Rule 4A(4) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003 read with Paragraph 3(2) of its Schedule explicitly bars inclusion of persons declared foreigners by a “competent authority,” a term unequivocally encompassing Foreigners Tribunals as established in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019). Thus, the Tribunal’s declaration remained legally operative irrespective of the NRC error.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration that Rofiqul Hoque is a foreigner who illegally entered India after March 25, 1971. The Court affirmed that Hoque failed to discharge the burden of proving citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as his evidence contained irreconcilable discrepancies in ancestral residency, age records across voter lists, and an unreliable school certificate. Critically, the Court ruled that inclusion in the 2018 draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) did not annul the Tribunal’s quasi-judicial declaration, citing Rule 4A(4) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and Paragraph 3(2) of its Schedule, which explicitly bar individuals declared foreigners by a “competent authority” (confirmed as Foreigners Tribunals in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, 2019) from inclusion in the NRC. Consequently, the interim release order granted based on the draft NRC inclusion was vacated, and Hoque was directed to be “treated and dealt with as a foreigner.” All pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title:Rofiqul Hoque vs. The Union of India & Ors. Citation:2025 INSC 730 Criminal Appeal No.:2686 of 2025 Date of Judgment:May 19, 2025 Judges/Justices: Justice Manoj Misra & Justice Sanjay Karol
Download The Judgement Here