The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) held that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must follow a “fair, lawful and reasoned” process, as it set aside a batch of Gauhati High Court judgments upholding orders that declared the appellants to be foreigners and remanded the cases to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while the State has a legitimate interest in identifying foreigners, “the determination of such status must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and reasoned.”

What is the case about?

The case arose out of proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals in the State of Assam and, in certain cases, before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. In all these matters, the appellants had been declared foreigners, and the said opinions had been affirmed by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh at Guwahati.

The common grievance before the Supreme Court was that these declarations had been made through ex parte proceedings or proceedings that had effectively become ex parte, and the statutory determination of their status was made without a full and meaningful opportunity for the appellants to contest the allegations against them.

The principal question before the Court was whether an ex parte or effectively ex parte proceeding can result in a mechanical declaration of foreigner status without the Tribunal satisfying itself that the minimum requirements of lawful and fair adjudication had been met, including a meaningful examination of the service of notice, the opportunity of hearing, the material forming the basis of the reference, and the evidence adduced by the State.

What was the ruling?

The Court held that even where the proceeding is ex parte, the Tribunal is still required to perform an adjudicatory function. The non-appearance of the proceedee may deprive him or her of the opportunity to lead evidence, but it does not relieve the Tribunal of the obligation to examine whether the reference is supported by the material produced by the State.

The Court observed that the appellants had been declared foreigners without any effective contest before the Tribunal and remanded the matters to the concerned Tribunals for fresh adjudication so that the appellants may produce their material, the State may adduce its evidence, and the Tribunal may return a fresh opinion in accordance with law.

Referring to Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 the Court observed: “The statutory scheme, therefore, has two complementary features. The first is that the proceedee carries the burden of proving that he or she is not a foreigner. The second is that the Tribunal must ensure a fair procedure, meaningful notice, consideration of material, and a reasoned opinion. These features are not in conflict. They operate together. The burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act arises and is discharged within the procedural safeguards of Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order.”

How did the court reach this conclusion?

The Court relied on various precedents, including Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam and Others (2024). The Court explained that the burden under Section 9 is not to be understood as permitting the authorities to proceed on a bare allegation or unsupported suspicion. The authority must possess some material basis for initiating the proceeding, and the proceedee must be informed of the substance of the case he or she is required to meet.

The Court also discussed the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

“Article 14 of the Constitution uses the expression ‘any person’. Article 21 of the Constitution uses the expression ‘no person’. Neither provision is confined to citizens. The protection of equality before law, equal protection of laws, life and personal liberty is, therefore, available to every person within the territory of India. A person proceeded against before a Foreigners Tribunal may ultimately fail to establish Indian citizenship, but the process by which such determination is made must still satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness,” the Court said.

The Court also reiterated the principle in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), where it rejected the contention that persons whose citizenship was disputed could be denied constitutional protection. The Court observed that foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further observed that the procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable” and cannot be “fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”. This principle is directly attracted where a statute creates a mechanism for determining whether a person is a foreigner, the Court said, relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

What are the implications?

The Court clarified the limited scope of the judgment. “We have not examined the merits of the claim of citizenship set up by any of the appellants. We have not expressed any opinion on the genuineness, admissibility, relevance or sufficiency of any document relied upon by them. Those questions must be decided by the concerned Tribunals independently, on the basis of the evidence which may be produced before them and in accordance with law.”

The Court said that citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance. Article 11 of the Constitution preserves the power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

Separately, the 1946 Act and the 1964 Order provide the statutory mechanism through which questions of whether a person is foreigner are referred to and determined by the Tribunal. The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship do not secure such status through misuse of process, false claims or procedural delays.

Published – July 15, 2026 11:09 am IST

Chidimma Adetshina, the beauty queen of South Africa, is having a citizenship problem. The 23-year-old law student, who rose to fame as a Miss South Africa finalist, has come under scrutiny for her nationality. Given her Nigerian and Mozambican ancestry, there have been concerns expressed regarding her eligibility to represent South Africa.

Concerns have been raised over the legitimacy of Adetshina’s South African citizenship due to allegations of identity theft against her mother. She was forced to leave the Miss South Africa contest due to the issue, stating that she was worried about her family’s safety.

According to the BBC, the Department of Home Affairs began investigating her case after she became a finalist in the Miss South Africa pageant but faced criticism as people questioned her eligibility to compete because her mother has Mozambican roots and her father is Nigerian.

The controversy sparked a wave of xenophobic vitriol in South Africa, after which Ms Adetshina told the BBC she would need therapy to recover. The Department of Home Affairs made the announcement about the withdrawal of her ID papers to a parliamentary committee on Tuesday.

Tommy Makhode, the top civil servant at the department, said Ms Adetshina’s mother would also have her documents cancelled as they had both failed to meet Monday’s deadline to provide reasons why they should be eligible to keep them.

Adetshina, who has not lived in Nigeria for two decades, received an invitation to represent Nigeria in the Miss Universe competition despite the controversy. This unexpected turn of events has further complicated her situation.

A 50-year-old Assam woman, who was declared an illegal migrant from Bangladesh due to her mismatch names in voters’ lists, has now regained her Indian citizenship after a six-year-long legal battle.

Dulubi Bibi, a resident of Cachar district’s Udharbond area, was declared a foreign migrant by the Foreigners Tribunal in 2017 in Assam’s Silchar district based on her mismatched names in the multiple voter lists.

Last week, Ms Bibi was declared as an Indian citizen based on circumstantial evidence.

The Foreigners Tribunal officer wrote in its order dated 7/10/2023, a copy of which is available with NDTV, that considering the facts and materials submitted and depositions in the earliest and present detailed of 1965, 1985 and 1997 along with the new documents of 1993 and 2015 voters list are to be appreciated without any doubt.

Expressing her happiness after proving her citizenship, Ms Bibi said; “Today I am happy because I got my Indian Citizenship. After having Indian Citizenship, I was branded as Bangladeshi. My grandparents are Indian Citizens how I can branded as Bangladeshi. For two years I stayed in Silchar detention centre, I am a Muslim woman and my family is conservative. I used to work as a cook before going to jail.”

“I’m not sure my husband will accept me or I’ll get any works now. Will the government take responsibility of this damage,” she further told while speaking with NDTV.

In March 2017, during the hearing of a 1998 case under the Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunals Act, she was declared as a Bangladeshi national after her name was found mismatch in the electoral roll.

Foreigners Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that decides the citizenship status of persons living in Assam, also found inconsistencies in her father’s and grandparents’ names in voters’ lists.

Following this, she was arrested in April 2018 and sent to a Silchar-based detention centre.

After spending two years in a detention camp, she was released on bail in April 2020 following a direction of the Supreme Court.

In May 2023, she challenged the 2017 FT-order in the Guwahati High Court.