NRC Draft Entry No Shield Against Foreigners Tribunal Ruling: Supreme Court Affirms Foreigner Status of Assam Resident

“Citizenship Can’t Be Claimed Through Inclusion in a List—It Must Be Proven with Lawful Evidence”, In a judgment that sharply defines the boundaries of citizenship determination Supreme Court ruled that once a person is declared a foreigner by a competent tribunal, the subsequent inclusion of their name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) “has no bearing whatsoever” on that declaration. The Court dismissed the appellant’s plea to annul the tribunal’s decision, stating that “a person once declared an illegal migrant cannot claim to be an Indian citizen merely because his name appeared in a list.”

Delivering the verdict, Justice Manoj Misra noted, “The inclusion of the name of the appellant in the draft NRC would have no bearing on the order passed by the Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court... The declaration of foreigner status stands unless reversed by a superior court.”

Rofiqul Hoque was declared a foreigner in 2017 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, for failing to establish his or his ancestors’ presence in India before the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. His challenge to this finding before the Gauhati High Court was also dismissed. After being taken into detention, he filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court in 2019, citing that his name had appeared in the 2018 draft NRC and that he had received a PAN card. The Court initially released him on interim grounds but ultimately rejected his appeal on merits.

The appellant had relied on voter lists, a school certificate, and an affidavit to prove Indian lineage. But the Court, affirming the findings of both the Tribunal and the High Court, found serious inconsistencies in the documents. “The probative value of the school certificate is weak. It was a duplicate obtained a decade later, and not corroborated by the issuing authority. Similarly, discrepancies in ages, village names, and familial links across voter lists severely weaken the claim,” the judgment observed.

The Court made it unequivocally clear that citizenship is not established by administrative inclusion. “The mere fact that the name of the appellant figured in the draft NRC does not efface the earlier declaration by the Tribunal... such inclusion cannot annul a binding quasi-judicial decision.”

In a stern reminder of the legal framework, the Bench referred to its earlier ruling in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, reaffirming that the Foreigners Tribunal is the “competent authority” under law, and not the Registrar of Citizens.

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores that NRC entries are not conclusive proof of citizenship, especially when contradicted by a tribunal’s order. By asserting that “citizenship cannot be based on presumptions or administrative slips,” the Court has reinforced the need for clear, lawful evidence in matters of nationality.

As the Bench concluded, “We find no legal infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal or the High Court. The appellant remains declared as a foreigner, and his name in the NRC draft cannot change that reality.”

This judgment sets a powerful precedent for similar disputes arising out of Assam’s NRC process and reaffirms that the adjudication of citizenship must be rooted in law, not lists.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2025