Citizenship Denied: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Rofiqul Hoque and the Burden of Proof under the Foreigners Act

The Starting Point

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rofiqul Hoque vs. Union of India and Others (2025), dismissed the appeal of a man who had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in the state of Assam. This decision is significant because it reaffirms the principles that are outlined in the Foreigners Act of 1946 and clarifies the limited legal value of inclusion in the NRC (National Register of Citizens). The verdicts of both the Tribunal and the Guwahati High Court were confirmed by the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed that the individual is solely responsible for demonstrating their Indian citizenship after a reference is made in accordance with the Foreigners Act. This case brings into sharp light the procedural and evidentiary obligations that are outlined in this law, as well as the restrictions that administrative lists like the NRC have when it comes to overturning court decisions.

Some Historical Context

The Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat, Assam, issued a declaration on March 4, 2017, stating that the appellant, Rofiqul Hoque, was a foreigner. This conclusion was reached on the basis of a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar, who had a suspicion that the appellant had entered India unlawfully after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. In his response, the appellant presented a number of documents, such as voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016, as well as school diplomas. Within these documents, he asserted that he was descended from Indian citizens in order to substantiate his case.

The evidence, on the other hand, was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that it was inconsistent, featured inconsistencies in ages and addresses, and lacked verification. In a later decision, the High Court upheld the position of the Tribunal. Next, the appellant went to the Supreme Court, where he relied heavily on the fact that his name had been included in the draft of the National Revenue Commission (NRC) that was published in 2018 and that the Income Tax Department had issued him a Permanent Account Number (PAN) card.

Provisions of the Law That Are Involved

The most important statute that is relevant to this case is the Foreigners Act of 1946, more specifically Section 9, which addresses the issue of who is responsible for providing evidence in procedures involving foreigners. In accordance with this rule, once the authorities have reason to believe that a person is a foreigner, it is the responsibility of the individual to demonstrate that they are not a foreigner.

The Court also addressed the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, particularly Rule 4A and Paragraph 3(2) of the Schedule. These rules stipulate that people who have been determined to be aliens by a Tribunal are not to be included in the National Registration Certificate (NRC).

In addition, the Constitution of India comes into play, particularly Article 136, which grants the Supreme Court of India the authority to review decisions made by lower courts and tribunals in the event that there is a significant legal error or a clear injustice.

An Examination of the Evidence

All three courts—the Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court—examined the evidence that Rofiqul Hoque provided with great attention to detail. The records contained voter lists that were supposed to indicate his grandfather’s name before the cut-off date, as well as later lists to demonstrate continuity of residence and genealogy. Additionally, the documents contained voter databases.

In spite of this, the courts discovered significant issues. It was revealed on the voter list from 1966 that the grandpa resided in a different village than the one that the appellant claimed to be his home. There were inconsistencies in the records regarding the ages of the persons across the several years, which led to questions regarding whether or not the individuals named were, really, the same. Moreover, the appellant never mentioned that his family had moved from one hamlet to another, which would have been a possible explanation for the disparities.

It was discovered that the school certificate, which was a critically important piece of evidence that was supposed to prove the appellant’s birth and parentage, was a duplicate that had been issued ten years after the appellant had left school. It was not supported by the testimony of the school headmaster or any evidence explaining the disappearance of the original. The courts ruled that this certificate lacked trust and legitimacy.

The Implications of the Burden of Proof and their Burden

The Foreigners Act, namely Section 9, was the deciding factor in this particular case. It is very evident that the individual who is facing proceedings is the one who is responsible for proving their Indian citizenship. In this particular instance, the law requires the individual who is suspected of being a foreigner to show documents that are trustworthy and convincing. This is in contrast to other criminal trials, in which the prosecution is required to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In its decision, the Supreme Court determined that the documents that were produced by the appellant did not meet the requirements necessary to relieve this burden. There were an excessive number of inconsistencies, and the affidavits that were intended to support the claim did not effectively address the contradictions.

The Issue of Inclusion in the National Research Council

The appellant offered a number of compelling arguments, one of the most significant of which was that the inclusion of his name in the draft of the NRC ought to automatically overturn the decision of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, unequivocally went against this appeal.

The court made reference to the Citizenship Rules of 2003, more notably the Schedule, which says that the names of people who have been categorised as foreigners by a competent body are not to be published in the National Register of Citizenship. Even in the event that such names are included, the inclusion does not have any legal impact unless the declaration made by the Tribunal is overturned.

The Supreme Court referred to its previous decision in the case of Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), in which it was determined that the National Registration Commission (NRC) process is not able to supersede a quasi-judicial declaration of foreigner status that was made by a Tribunal. Administrative procedures are not able to nullify such declarations; rather, they can only be nullified through court appeal or review.

Conclusions and Repercussions of the Decision

In its review of the decisions made by the Tribunal and the High Court, the Supreme Court did not discover any errors. It was noted that the results were not subject to any perversity or legal infirmity, and that they were founded on a logical evaluation of the facts. The appeal was consequently rejected as a result.

In light of the fact that the appellant is now to be classified as a foreigner, the temporary order that had been issued earlier for his release has been reinstated. As a result of this case, the role of Tribunals as the principal authority in deciding nationality status is effectively endorsed, and the limited extent of judicial review that is permitted under Article 136 in such circumstances is affirmed.

This ruling highlights the importance of proceedings that are conducted in accordance with the Foreigners Act. Due to the fact that the law places a heavy responsibility on the individual to demonstrate their citizenship, the courts will not accept documentation that is ambiguous or inconsistent. In addition, administrative lists such as the NRC have limited legal validity when they are in disagreement with official statements made by a Tribunal. The case of Rofiqul Hoque brings to light the difficulties that persons encounter while attempting to demonstrate their citizenship in the state of Assam. Additionally, it serves to strengthen the legal principle that judicial decisions cannot be easily overturned by bureaucratic procedures.

The verdict serves as a warning story for both residents and authorities, highlighting the significance of maintaining accurate and consistent documentation over the course of multiple generations. In addition, it emphasizes that citizenship is not merely a bureaucratic admission but rather a legal position that must be demonstrated by evidence that is unambiguous, trustworthy, and verifiable.