Primacy of Foreigners Tribunal Declarations over Draft NRC Entries
Commentary on Supreme Court’s Judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India (2025 INSC 730)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India confronts a recurring controversy in Assam: what happens when a person already declared a “foreigner” by a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) subsequently appears in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC)?

The appellant, Mr. Rofiqul Hoque, had been declared a foreigner (post-25 March 1971 entrant) by the FT, Jorhat, and the declaration had been affirmed by the Gauhati High Court. After his detention, Hoque’s name surfaced in the 2018 draft NRC, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. Two core questions arose:

1. Did the FT and High Court err in holding that he failed to discharge the burden of proving Indian citizenship?
2. Does inclusion of a person’s name in the draft NRC nullify an earlier FT declaration treating him as a foreigner?

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Karol answered both queries against the appellant, laying down a clear hierarchy between FT decisions and NRC listings.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Burden of proof: Reiterated that under s. 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the person proceeded against carries the onus to establish Indian citizenship.
• Evidentiary assessment: The Court endorsed the High Court’s exhaustive critique of discrepancies in voter lists and a dubious duplicate school certificate relied on by the appellant.
• Effect of draft NRC: Inclusion of a name in the draft NRC cannot efface or override an FT declaration. Rule 4-A and the Schedule to the Citizenship Rules, 2003, expressly bar such inclusion; if it nevertheless occurs, it does not invalidate the Tribunal’s decision.
• Appeal dismissed: The interim bail granted earlier was discharged, and the appellant was ordered to be “treated and dealt with as a foreigner.”

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union Of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665
   • Confirmed constitutional validity of burden reversal in s. 9 of the Foreigners Act.
   • The present Bench relied on Sonowal to reiterate that procedural propriety demands strict discharge of the burden by the alleged foreigner.
2. Abdul Kuddus v. Union Of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604
   • A three-Judge Bench had clarified that once a competent authority (i.e., FT) declares a person a foreigner, their name cannot be entered in the NRC.
   • Misra J. treats Abdul Kuddus as binding precedent on both (i) the definition of “competent authority” in the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and (ii) the legal consequence of an FT declaration.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

(a) On Evidentiary Failure)
The Court accepts the High Court’s 9-point forensic breakdown of documentary inconsistencies (ages not tallying, unexplained village shifts, overwritten voter entries, and an unproved duplicate school certificate obtained a decade belatedly). None of these errors were trivial; collectively they demolished the lineage narrative that the appellant sought to weave.

(b) On Interface between FT and NRC)
The Bench embarks on a textual exegesis of Rule 4-A and the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003:

• Paragraph 3(2) of the Schedule categorically prohibits inclusion of persons “declared illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority” in the consolidated list for NRC.
• “Competent authority” means the FT, per Abdul Kuddus.
• Practical result: If the FT’s adverse declaration predates publication of the draft NRC, the person’s appearance in that draft list is an administrative error incapable of dislodging the adjudicatory finding.

In addition, the Court underscores the quasi-judicial nature of FT orders, removable only by superior courts, not by executive or administrative determinations like NRC enumeration. This demarcation preserves separation between adjudication and clerical compilation.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Re-affirmation of hierarchy: Establishes a firm pecking order: Supreme Court > High Court > Foreigners Tribunal > NRC authorities. FTs occupy a higher pedestal than NRC enumerators.
• Operational clarity for NRC update rounds: Authorities must cross-reference FT lists to avoid wrongful inclusion—expectation of tighter internal controls.
• Detention & deportation pipeline: Individuals previously banking on their draft NRC appearance to stall deportation processes will find that avenue foreclosed unless they can overturn the FT order judicially.
• Litigation strategy: Counsel representing alleged foreigners must focus on challenging FT findings directly (appeal/revision) rather than relying on subsequent administrative documents.
• Policy resonance: Places renewed emphasis on quality and fairness of FT proceedings because their determinations now have even more far-reaching consequences.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Foreigners Act, 1946 – Section 9

Requires the person suspected of being a foreigner to prove the contrary; the State does not have to first prove alienage.

Foreigners Tribunal (FT)

Quasi-judicial body constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to determine whether a person is an Indian citizen or foreigner.

National Register of Citizens (NRC)

An administrative database of persons deemed Indian citizens in Assam; still in draft stage. Inclusion is tentative until the final list is published.

Draft NRC vs. Final NRC

Draft NRC is a provisional list released for objections/claims. Only the final NRC confers evidentiary value; even then, it is still subject to judicial review.

Rule 4-A, Citizenship Rules, 2003

Special rule governing NRC preparation in Assam; explicitly imports FT decisions into NRC eligibility criteria.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rofiqul Hoque crystallises the legal position that a Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration is decisive unless and until set aside by a superior court; administrative anomalies such as an individual’s name in the draft NRC cannot dilute that declaration. By rejecting pleas based on minor documentary discrepancies and buttressing the burden-of-proof doctrine, the Court reinforces procedural discipline in citizenship adjudication. The judgment will guide both NRC authorities and litigants, ensuring that finality of FT findings is respected, thereby providing legal certainty in an area fraught with social and political sensitivities.