Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010182662019 2026:GAU-AS:8597 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5624/2019 INSAN ALI S/O- LATE SAHARUDDIN SEIKH @ SAFUR ALI, R/O- VILL- BECHIMARI, MOUZA- PUB SILMARI, P.O- SILBORI, P.S- DALGAON, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOK ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC OFFICE ADDRESS AT ACHYUT PLAZA G S ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- 5 KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 2/10 ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAKSA ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BAKSA DIST- BAKSA ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BAKSA P.S DIST- BAKSA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : F BEGUM, MR. L MOHAN,MRS. B CHAKRABORTY,MS. S PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) For the Petitioner : Ms. S. Paul For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Payeng, SC, Home Deptt. & NRC, Mr. P. Sarma, GA, Assam, Mr. N. Kalita on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI. Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Page No.# 3/10 operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? (Pranjal Das, J) Heard Ms. S. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel, Home Department & NRC; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing counsel, ECI. 2. Invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Insan Ali has challenged the impugned judgment and opinion dated 31-05-2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 1782/BAKSA/2016 [arising out of S.P.(B), Nalbari reference : IM(D)T Case No. 60/2001] – whereby the prayer of the petitioner for time was allowed earlier and on the subsequent dates, when the petitioner as proceedee, failed to submit his evidence, the learned Tribunal referring to the legal mandate of disposing of the reference within the period of 60 days – proceeded to answer the reference and did so in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner as proceedee/opposite party was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India from the specified territory on or after 25-03-1971. He also directed certain consequential steps pursuant to rendering of such opinion. 3. Before proceeding further, the facts contended by the petitioner may be narrated briefly. The petitioner is stated to be the son of one Lt. Saharuddin Sheikh and Ayatun Nessa. It is stated that a reference was made regarding his nationality to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nalbari by S.P. Reference No. 1104/2002 in which notice was issued by the learned Tribunal. But due to his non-appearance, the learned Tribunal proceeding ex-parte passed opinion dated 18-01- 2013, holding him to be a foreigner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application Page No.# 4/10 along with a delay condonation petition for setting aside the ex-parte order. But both the petitions were dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court vide WP(C)/7770/2017, seeking interference with the order dated 18-01-2013 passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nalbari in the aforementioned case of 2007. This Court, vide order dated 08-01-2018, was pleased to set aside the aforementioned impugned order and remanded back the matter for fresh determination. 4. The matter had, in the meantime, reached the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Tamulpur at Baksa. The said learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, after adjudication, rendered its opinion dated 05-04-2018, holding that Md. Insan Ali was not a foreigner. It is further stated by the petitioner that despite being declared as not a foreigner by the aforesaid order – a notice was again served on him on 08-12-2018 with regard to fresh reference which was registered as F.T. Case No. 1782/BAKSA/2016 [arising out of S.P.(B), Nalbari Reference : IM(D)T Case No. 60/2001], alleging that he had illegally migrated to India after 25-03-1971 from Bangladesh. 5. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed a petition on 06-03-2019 stating that he had been declared as not a foreigner in F.T. Case No. 6/BAKSA/2018 and prayed that the subsequent proceeding be closed. However, the learned Tribunal opined that as the reference has been preferred, it has to render an opinion and asked the petitioner to submit his response. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his written statement along with documents and on 27-05-2019 sought some time to submit additional written statement. However, the same was rejected and the petitioner was declared a foreigner vide opinion dated 31-05-2019 as already mentioned at the outset. 6. In the impugned opinion dated 31-05-2019, the learned Tribunal stated that the prayer for additional written statement was allowed and thereafter, in between, unfortunately the case record was misplaced and subsequently, the matter was taken up on 27-05-2019. It is stated that by then 5(five) months had elapsed and the petitioner as proceedee had not yet filed his evidence and considering the legal mandate of disposal within 60(sixty) days, the learned Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the matter rendering the opinion against the petitioner as mentioned at the beginning. Page No.# 5/10 7. The primary and main contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that having been declared not a foreigner by the opinion dated 05-04-2018 by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa,Tamulpur, Assam, in F.T.(Nal) B. Case No. 2351/2007 – the subsequent impugned opinion could not have declared him as a foreigner by stating that he had illegally come into India from Bangladesh after 25-03-1971. 8. Ms. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner supporting the said contention in the writ petition submits that the determination regarding the petitioner had already been done in his favor by holding that he is not an illegal migrant or a foreigner who had come into India illegally from specified territories. Therefore, the subsequent reference is bad in law and non- maintainable and rendering of such an opinion and that too without giving him any opportunity to adduce evidence is unsustainable and should be set aside in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had cogently proved his Indian nationality in the earlier proceeding and that he is the same Insan Ali who was declared to be not a foreigner by the learned Foreigners Tribunal in the earlier proceeding. 9. Mr. Payeng, learned Standing counsel, Home Department & NRC does not dispute that in the earlier round of reference proceeding, the learned Foreigners Tribunal had rendered the opinion dated 05-04-2018 in favor of the petitioner. He, however, submits that in the written statement submitted by the proceedee, in the subsequent proceeding, there is no mention of the earlier case. It is also submitted that there is no voters’ list figuring the name of the petitioner from the period from 1973 to 1997. It is submitted that once a reference has been made, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal was obligated in law to give an opinion and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 10. Now, the question is when an opinion is rendered in favor of the proceedee by learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, whether the same can be reopened by way of a subsequent reference. And in the context of the same, if such reference is made, whether the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal is compulsorily required to render an opinion stating whether the referred proceedee is a foreigner or not. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2019) 6 SCC 604 may be referred Page No.# 6/10 to. 11. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 23 that the opinion rendered by a foreigners tribunal is a quasi-judicial order and not an administrative order. It was also held that whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, such findings would be binding unless reversed in a proceeding (appeal or writ petition) before a higher forum. It was clearly held in para 24 that the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal and the consequential order passed by the registering authority would operate as res-judicata. The relevant paras 23 and 24 may be reproduced herein below – “23. The procedure prescribed by the post 2012 amendment under the 1964 Order mandates compliance with the principles of natural justice. All the allegations and grounds are required to be served by the Tribunal in the form of a show-cause notice to the person who is alleged to be a foreigner [see para 60 in Sarbananda Sonowal (2)2]. Thereupon, the person has to be given a reasonable opportunity to file representation and also produce evidence. The Tribunal has been authorised to consider and allow prayer for production and examination of the witnesses which can be refused if found to be vexatious, or made with the intent to cause delay, etc. The evidence produced by the Superintendent of Police can also be recorded. The person concerned has to be heard before the Tribunal gives its opinion. The person concerned may appear in person or can be represented by a legal practitioner or an authorised representative. Opinion is to be given within a period of sixty days after the reference from the competent authority. No doubt, the Rules do not prescribe and require an opinion of the Tribunal to be a detailed judgment, nevertheless. it is obvious that the opinion rendered must state the facts and reasons for drawing the conclusions. It is a decision and an order. Fixing time-limits and recording of an order rather than detailed judgment is to ensure that these cases are disposed of expeditiously and in a time- bound manner. The opinion by the Foreigners Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order and not an administrative order. The expression "quasi-judicial order" means a verdict in writing which determines and decides contesting issues and question by a forum other than a court. The determination has civil consequences. Explaining the meaning of Page No.# 7/10 quasi-judicial body in Indian National Congress (1) v. Institute of Social Welfare³, it was held that when anybody of persons has a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and a duty to act judicially, such body of persons constitute a quasi-judicial body and decision given by them is a quasi-judicial decision. It would also be a quasi-judicial order if the statute empowers an authority to decide the lis not between the two contesting parties but also when the decision prejudicially affects the subject as against the authority, provided that the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. Further, what differentiates an administrative act from the quasi-judicial act is that a quasi-judicial body is required to make an enquiry before arriving at a conclusion. In addition, an administrative authority is the one which is dictated by policy and expediency whereas a quasi-judicial authority is required to act according to the rules. 24. The opinion/order of the Tribunal, or the order passed by the Registering Authority based upon the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal, as the case may be, can be challenged by way of writ proceedings. Thus, it would be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal and/or the consequential order passed by the Registering Authority would not operate as res judicata. Both the opinion of the Tribunal and the order of the Registering Authority result in determination of rights/status under the statute and by an authority after a contest on the merits which would necessarily operate as a bar to subsequent proceedings before the same authority for redetermination of the same issue/question. This Court in Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.4 has held that the principles of res judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies. Whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and are binding until reversed in appeal or by way of writ proceedings. The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether right or wrong. Thus, any error, either of fact or law, committed by such bodies cannot be controverted otherwise by way of an appeal or a writ unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body.” (Emphasis supplied) Page No.# 8/10 12. Thus, the aforesaid ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court lays down the law in no uncertain terms that the principles of res-judicata would apply to an opinion rendered by Foreigners Tribunal and any such opinion rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal can be challenged only in an appeal or writ proceedings wherever applicable. And thus, when the said opinion attains finality – the same cannot be reopened as a matter of course to the prejudice of the person, in whose favour the opinion has been rendered. 13. Such an approach indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra) is also very sound public policy as otherwise despite a person being held to be not a foreigner by an opinion of the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, the question of nationality with regard to him would continue to be in a state of flux and uncertainty in the future, to considerable prejudice of the proceedee. 14. However, we are of the opinion that the only situation when a fresh reference can be preferred against a person, declared not a foreigner by an earlier opinion – is when the reference holds that the reference seeks a determination on the ground that the said person against whom the subsequent reference is made is not the person of the same name against whom the earlier favourable opinion was passed. 15. Before preferring such a reference, the referring authority is expected to know or verify as to whether any previous reference has been answered in favour of the person earlier. In a situation, however, where the referring authority makes a reference overlooking any previous opinion in favour of the proceedee – then it will be open to the said proceedee to place the materials including the previous order before the learned Tribunal in support of his contention about an existing opinion in his favour of being an Indian citizen or alternatively, not being a foreigner. In such a situation, the Foreigners’ Tribunal has to first adjudicate regarding the identity of the proceedee and as to whether, the proceedee in the subsequent reference is the same as the proceedee in whose favour, the favourable opinion was rendered in the earlier proceeding. Only in the event of the learned Tribunal finding that the subsequent proceedee is a different person from the proceedee of the earlier reference – that, it can take up the adjudication of the matter and then call upon the subsequent proceedee to submit his Page No.# 9/10 defence/evidence. In such a situation, what would happen to the disposal time limit of 60 days vide Order 3(14) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1960, would be another matter. Some flexibility may be necessary. However, the said point is kept open in this lis. 16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the opinion dated 05.04.2018 has not attained finality. Therefore, the said opinion in favour of Md. Insan Ali S/o Lt. Saharuddin Sheikh and Ayatun Nessa, still holds. Now, since another opinion has been rendered against Md. Insan Ali, stated to be S/o Lt. Saharuddin Sheikh and Ayatun Nessa, without adducing of any evidence, the said opinion is required to be interfered with. 17. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 31-05-2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 1782/BAKSA/2016 [arising out of S.P.(B) Nalbari Reference: IM(D)T Case No. 60/2001] is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to make a preliminary determination as to whether the petitioner Md. Insan Ali is the same person with regard to whom opinion dated 05.04.2018 was passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 06/BAKSA/2018 [arising out of F.T. (Nal) B. Case No. 2351/2007(old)] – holding him to be not a foreigner. If such a determination is made in favour of the petitioner, the subsequent reference would be liable to be answered in favour of the petitioner. 18. In the event that the petitioner is found to be a different person than the proceedee in F.T. Case No. 1782/BAKSA/2016 [arising out of S.P.(B) Nalbari Reference: IM(D)T Case No. 60/2001] – only in that event, the learned Foreigner's Tribunal would proceed to determine the question of nationality on the basis of evidence. 19. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 20. Send back the original records. 21. Interim order passed on 06.11.2019 stands modified to the extent that the petitioner Page No.# 10/10 Md. Insan Ali shall not be deported till adjudication of the matter afresh by the learned Tribunal upon remand vide this judgment and order. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant