In Assam, the process of determining citizenship has often become a site of prolonged anxiety, institutional arbitrariness, and systemic discrimination—particularly for Bengali-speaking Muslims. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s recent order in Tarabhanu Khatoon @ Tarabhanu Bibi v. Union of India comes as a crucial reaffirmation of the principles of legal finality, procedural fairness, and constitutional protection.
The petitioner, who had already been declared an Indian citizen by a Foreigners Tribunal in 2016, was again dragged into a fresh proceeding on the same allegation without any new material—exposing her to renewed trauma and the looming threat of statelessness. The Supreme Court’s decision to quash this second proceeding not only provides much-needed relief in her individual case but also sets an important precedent against the misuse of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as a tool for repeated harassment. This ruling strikes at the heart of Assam’s flawed citizenship adjudication process and re-establishes critical safeguards against bureaucratic overreach.
Citizenship cases: Double jeopardy, a tool used by the state in Assam
The order concerns Tarabhanu Khatoon @ Tarabhanu Bibi, a resident of Nalbari district in Assam, who became the subject of repeated proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946. She was first served notice in FT Case No. 269/2016 before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari (at Mukalmua), on the suspicion that she was an illegal migrant from Bangladesh, having allegedly entered India after the cutoff date of March 25, 1971—a date fixed by the Assam Accord and adopted into Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
In her defence, Tarabhanu submitted strong documentary evidence, including:
- Names of her father and grandfather in the 1966 and 1970 electoral rolls, predating the 1971 cutoff.
- Her own name appearing in voter lists since 1985.
- Oral testimony corroborating her ancestry and residence in India.
Crucially, the State failed to lead any evidence—no witness appeared, and no documentation proving illegal entry was produced. Consequently, the Tribunal on August 31, 2016 declared her to be not a foreigner, effectively affirming her Indian citizenship.
Despite this adjudication, she was again issued a notice on December 15, 2018 in FT Case No. 695/2018, accusing her of being a Bangladeshi national—based on the same allegation and without any fresh material evidence. This triggered a fresh round of litigation and mental trauma, prompting her to challenge the second proceeding.
The Gauhati High Court’s Error: Failure to quash repetitive proceedings
The matter was first heard by the Gauhati High Court, which refused to quash the second FT proceedings, instead stating that she was free to raise her defence before the Tribunal again. The High Court appeared to treat the second notice as if it were procedurally valid, overlooking the fact that a final and binding decision had already been passed in 2016 on the very same issue.
This approach effectively undermined the principle of legal finality, suggesting that citizenship could be questioned ad infinitum, thereby exposing individuals to repeated harassment, legal costs, and potential detention.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: Finality, fairness, and res judicata in citizenship adjudication
A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered a decisive ruling in favour of the appellant. It held that once a Foreigners Tribunal had given a final finding after providing due opportunity to both sides, the State could not initiate a second proceeding unless it had either:
- Challenged the original order before the High Court, or
- Sought a recall of the Tribunal’s order on valid legal grounds.
As no such challenge or recall was made, and no provision for review had been brought to the Court’s attention, the earlier 2016 order stood final. The Supreme Court cited its own precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), reiterating that Foreigners Tribunal decisions have binding effect and attract the doctrine of res judicata.
“Once it is not in dispute that on a previous reference the Tribunal after giving opportunity to both sides, on appraisal of evidence, found the appellant not a foreigner, the only course available for the respondent was either to challenge the order before the High Court or seek for its recall on grounds permissible for recall. As no provision for review exists, at least not shown to us, so long the earlier order stands, it is not open to initiate fresh proceedings as the same would be hit by principles of res judicata as held by this Court in Abdul Kuddus.” (Para 9)
In scathing terms, the Court stated in its order that:
“…the subsequent proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the High Court ought to have interdicted the same.” (Para 9)
The Court’s key observations include:
- There is no provision in the Foreigners Act or allied rules that allows the government to reopen a decided case without following due legal procedures.
- The Tribunal’s 2016 decision was final and binding, having been rendered after due process and full opportunity of hearing to both parties.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed its precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), where it had held that Tribunal orders are quasi-judicial in nature and attract the doctrine of res judicata.
The order rejected the Assam government’s argument that the earlier order was “cryptic”, observing that even if the State found the Tribunal’s reasoning inadequate, its remedy lay in challenging the order legally—not by launching a parallel proceeding. The Court emphasised that allowing multiple and unregulated proceedings on the same issue would destroy the rule of law and severely erode individual liberties.
The complete order may be read here.
Wider significance: A critical check on state overreach in citizenship verification
This order is pivotal, especially in the context of Assam’s fraught citizenship verification machinery, which includes:
- Thousands of cases of double or multiple notices being issued against the same person.
- Use of ex parte orders when individuals fail to appear, sometimes due to lack of notice or financial hardship.
- Detention centres housing individuals for years based on flawed or unchallenged tribunal findings.
- Misuse of Border Police references, often without investigation, disproportionately targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims and other minorities.
It is essential to note that the State of Assam had every opportunity to challenge the 2016 order of the Tribunal, either by filing a review, a recall, or a writ petition, but did none of these. By clearly articulating that re-litigation is impermissible unless prior orders are overturned through proper legal avenues, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message to both the State of Assam and the Foreigners Tribunals to operate within constitutional bounds.
Moreover, this ruling reaffirms that citizenship is a fundamental right, not a bureaucratic uncertainty, and legal finality must be respected to ensure dignity and security of individuals. It also strengthens the rule of law in an area often marked by arbitrariness, communal bias, and procedural irregularities.
Conclusion: A shield against bureaucratic harassment
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tarabhanu Khatoon is more than just a personal victory for the petitioner—it is a significant verdict that draws a firm line against state overreach in citizenship determination. It ensures that once nationality is established, it cannot be questioned endlessly, especially by the same state machinery that failed to prove its case in the first instance.
In a region where identity, citizenship, and belonging have become matters of constant suspicion and state scrutiny, this order restores an essential balance between state power and individual rights, laying down that citizenship cannot be treated as a moving target—especially for India’s most vulnerable.
Related:
Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order
Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp