Assam: Gauhati High Court deprecates foreigner tribunals passing unreasoned orders, directs state to probe

The Gauhati High Court on November 30 raised concerns over the functioning of Foreigner Tribunals in Assam, directing the state government to conduct a departmental review. The court expressed disapproval of the tribunals declaring individuals as citizens or foreigners without proper analysis or reasoning.

The division bench highlighted the trend of tribunals recording material without sufficient analysis and failing to provide adequate reasoning for their declarations. The court emphasized that tribunals have the crucial responsibility to adjudicate references and decide whether the materials presented indicate a person as a foreigner or a citizen, underlining the necessity for reasoned decisions.

The court observed instances where individuals were declared foreigners without proper explanation, raising the possibility of erroneous declarations of citizenship in other cases. The lack of reasoning in such orders was deemed unacceptable by the court, emphasizing the serious consequences of such procedures.

In response to these concerns, the Gauhati High Court directed the Assam Government to initiate a departmental review of cases where tribunals had declared proceedees as citizens without proper analysis. The court empowered the Home Department to take appropriate measures, ensuring strict compliance with the law and principles of natural justice.

Notably, the court pointed out that approximately 85% of references resulted in individuals being declared citizens. Given the gravity of the matter concerning illegal migrants in Assam, the court urged transparency by requiring the results of any actions taken to be made public.

The court's directive came in the context of a writ petition filed against a tribunal's opinion declaring an individual a foreigner based on a discrepancy in his father's name. The court found the tribunal's rejection of the petitioner's citizenship application unjustified, emphasizing that minor variations in name spellings should not be a basis for concluding individuals as different persons.