1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner who illegally entered India after 1971.
2. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was a foreigner but modified the order because the reference to the Tribunal alleged illegal entry between 1966-1971, not post-1971.
3. The Court directed that the petitioner be given the liberty to register as a foreigner from the 1966-1971 period and be released from detention once registered.
1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner who illegally entered India after 1971.
2. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was a foreigner but modified the order because the reference to the Tribunal alleged illegal entry between 1966-1971, not post-1971.
3. The Court directed that the petitioner be given the liberty to register as a foreigner from the 1966-1971 period and be released from detention once registered.
1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner who illegally entered India after 1971.
2. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was a foreigner but modified the order because the reference to the Tribunal alleged illegal entry between 1966-1971, not post-1971.
3. The Court directed that the petitioner be given the liberty to register as a foreigner from the 1966-1971 period and be released from detention once registered.
W.P.(C) No. 7551 of 2016 Decided On: 03.04.2017 Appellants: Santosh Das Vs. Respondent: Union of India and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan and Paran Kumar Phukan, JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.A. Sarkar, Advocate For Respondents/Defendant: P. Baruah, Advocate and G. Pegu, G.A. ORDER Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1 . Heard Mr. H.A. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the Central Government and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang in BNG N/FT (CHR)/295/08 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. 2 . In this case, reference was initially made under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 but after declaration of the said Act as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0406/2005 : (2005) 5 SCC 665, the reference was re-registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, as amended, as BNGN/FT (CHR)/295/2008 and after creation of additional Tribunals, the reference was assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang (Tribunal) for opinion. 3 . After hearing the matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 02.11.2016 in the above manner. 4. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 5. On 20.12.2016 when the writ petition was moved, Court was informed that petitioner was taken into custody. In that context, Court passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from India until further orders. 6. Primary contention of Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that reference was made against the petitioner on the allegation that he was suspected to be a foreigner belonging to the 1966-1971 stream. Tribunal committed a manifest error and had exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Therefore, impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set
86
31-03-2022 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi
aside and quashed. 7. In response, Mr. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that in so far finding of the Tribunal holding the petitioner to be a foreigner is concerned, the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, on the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that Court may take an appropriate decision in this regard. 8 . Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 9. From the materials on record, we find that reference was made against the petitioner by the then police authorities of Bongaigaon with the allegation that he had illegally entered into India from the specified territory during the period 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 on the basis of which the reference proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. This fact was also acknowledged by the Tribunal and recorded in the impugned order dated 2.11.16. However, in the final conclusion, Tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 10. We will deal with this aspect of the matter a little later. For the moment, we deal with first the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into the State. 11. We notice that in his written statement, petitioner disclosed that he was a citizen of India by birth. But in his deposition before the Tribunal, he stated that his father had migrated to India from the territory now known as Bangladesh when he was a young boy. Certainly, these two statements are contradictory to each other. If one is to be believed, the other has to be discarded. Though petitioner had exhibited some documents to show presence of Late Suresh Das (father of the petitioner) on Indian soil prior to 1971, Tribunal did not accept the evidence adduced by the petitioner to establish his linkage with Suresh Das whom he claimed to be his father. Till this part of the order, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner also did not seriously challenge this finding of the Tribunal. 12. However, thereafter Tribunal took the view that there is nothing in the Foreigners Act, 1946 or in the Orders made thereunder to bind it to the terms of the reference whereafter Tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. 13. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 empowers the Central Government to make Orders dealing with foreigners. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 was framed. Order 2 deals with constitution of Tribunals. As per Order 2(1), Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion. Order 2(1A) also confers such power on a registering authority appointed under Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 16(F) of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. 14. We have been informed at the Bar that the power of the Central Government to make reference in terms of Order 2(1) has since been delegated to the concerned Superintendents of Police. 15. From a careful reading of Order 2(1), what is discernible is that a reference is made
87
31-03-2022 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi
Introduction to Syrian Personal Status and Family Law: Syrian Legislation and Jurisprudence on Marriage, Divorce, Custody, Guardianship and Adoption for the Purpose of Immigration to the United States: Self-Help Guides to the Law™, #9