FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT: SC:

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a Foreigners Tribunal does not have the authority to reopen a case by reviewing or sitting in appeal over its own final decision. The Court emphasized that once a Foreigners Tribunal has rendered a conclusive judgment on a person’s citizenship status, it cannot subsequently revisit or overturn its own findings.

This ruling came in response to a case where the Foreigners Tribunal had previously declared the appellant an Indian citizen but later initiated a fresh inquiry into the same matter. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s subsequent order, affirming that such an action exceeded its jurisdiction. According to the facts of the case, the Tribunal had originally passed an order on February 15, 2018, categorically holding that the appellant was not a foreigner who had entered India from Bangladesh on or after March 25, 1971. Despite this clear determination, the Tribunal later sought to reassess the appellant’s citizenship status, prompting judicial intervention. The Supreme Court, while quashing the reopening of the case, reiterated that legal certainty and finality of decisions must be upheld to prevent arbitrary and repetitive litigation on the same issue.

However, on December 24, 2019, the Foreigners Tribunal entertained a fresh reference initiated by the State of Assam, despite having already rendered a conclusive decision on the appellant’s citizenship status. In its new proceedings, the Tribunal asserted that it retained the authority to reassess the documents, materials, and even the findings from the previous adjudication. On this basis, it directed the appellant to submit a written statement in response to the renewed inquiry.

Challenging this decision, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, contending that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reopen a matter that had already been conclusively decided. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal possessed the authority to re-examine the issue, irrespective of its prior ruling. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, seeking relief against the Tribunal's order and the High Court’s affirmation of its powers.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that, in the initial order, the Assistant Government Advocate had represented the State, and arguments on its behalf were duly heard. The appellant had also presented evidence in support of her case. After thoroughly considering the arguments advanced by the State, as well as evaluating the oral testimonies and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant, the Tribunal had unequivocally ruled in her favor, affirming her status as an Indian citizen.

However, the State did not challenge the initial order by filing an appeal before the High Court. The Supreme Court further observed that the counsel representing the State failed to cite any legal provision under which the Tribunal had the authority to review its own decision.

The Court remarked: "In its second order dated December 24, 2019, the Tribunal went so far as to assert that it retained the power to scrutinize documents and even revisit findings from the earlier proceedings. This order clearly indicates that the Tribunal was effectively sitting in appeal over its own final judgment. Such an exercise of power is impermissible. The appropriate legal recourse available to the State Government or, for that matter, the Central Government, was to challenge the order dated February 15, 2018, through proper judicial channels."

The High Court has missed the real issue. The real issue was whether the Tribunal could have reopened the case by recording a finding that it can scrutinize the findings recorded by the same Tribunal in earlier judgment which had become final. As the Tribunal was powerless to do it, only on that ground, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the impugned order dated 24th December, 2019 in F.T. Case No.2854/2012."

The Court also added that it is now not open for the State or Union to challenge the February 15 order.