In Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India, decided on May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India revisited the sensitive and complex issue of citizenship determination in Assam under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The judgment states that once a person is declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal (FT), subsequent inclusion of that person’s name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) cannot annul such a declaration. Authored by Justice Manoj Misra, the ruling affirms the Gauhati High Court’s decision and reiterates the priority of quasi-judicial FT findings over administrative processes like the NRC.
What makes the judgment significant—but also contentious—is not merely its procedural holding, but the manner in which the Court treated the petitioner’s evidence. While the ruling rests on established precedents such as Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), it marks a notable shift from earlier Supreme Court positions that accepted minor discrepancies in names, dates, or residence as tolerable when weighed against the totality of credible documentary evidence.
As citizenship in Assam continues to be adjudicated through overlapping forums—FTs, NRC processes, and constitutional courts—this judgment bears important implications for legal strategy, evidentiary framing, and the fate of thousands accused of being ‘illegal immigrants.’ The case becomes a useful lens through which we may compare evolving judicial approaches to documentary evidence and procedural fairness.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India
Factual matrix
Rofiqul Hoque, the appellant, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (FT), Jorhat, Assam, on March 4, 2017 under a reference by the Border Police. The basis: he had allegedly entered India illegally after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. He contested this decision before the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the FT’s findings. In 2018, however, the petitioner’s name appeared in the draft NRC. He filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, arguing that such inclusion rebutted the FT’s conclusion.
Submissions by the parties
Appellant’s contentions:
- Inclusion in the draft NRC should have overriding effect and demonstrate that the petitioner is not a foreigner.
- The FT and High Court adopted a “pedantic” approach, rejecting evidence on grounds of minor discrepancies in age, name spellings, and address.
- Change in village domicile does not imply change in citizenship.
Respondents (Union of India and Assam government):
- Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden of proof is on the proceedee.
- NRC inclusion is neither determinative nor binding upon the FT or the State.
- Discrepancies in documentary evidence raised substantial doubts about the petitioner’s claimed lineage.
Legal issues framed by the SC
- Whether the findings of the FT and the High Court suffered from legal infirmity or ignored credible evidence?
- Whether inclusion of the appellant’s name in the draft NRC can nullify a prior declaration by an FT?
Court’s Findings: Scrutinising evidence, procedure, and statutory framework
The Court’s reasoning rests on two central legal foundations:
- The burden of proof placed on the alleged foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
- The non-binding nature of NRC inclusion for persons already declared foreigners, as per the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and the precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India.
On the merits of evidence and the burden under Section 9: The appellant relied on a combination of official records to establish his Indian citizenship through ancestry:
- Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016 purportedly featuring his grandfather (Joynal Abdin), father (Majut Ali), and mother (Sopia Bibi).
- A duplicate school certificate issued in 2014, showing his date of birth as 20.07.1996 and naming his parents.
- An income tax PAN card issued post-2017, and inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC.
Despite this, both the Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court held the petitioner failed to discharge the burden placed on him by Section 9. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stressing that the proceedee must prove:
- Presence of ancestors in India before March 25, 1971, and
- His linkage to those ancestors through credible, consistent documents.
The Supreme Court found the petitioner’s case wanting on the following counts:
1. Village discrepancy:
-
- The appellant claimed descent from Joynal Abdin of Daobhangi village, Dhubri district.
- Voter records showed Joynal Abdin in Kekurchar village, Sivasagar district, with no affidavit or evidence explaining this change.
- There was no plea or corroborative document to establish a migration history, which would have reconciled the apparent inconsistency.
“The Tribunal as well as the High Court have considered these documents and have found that those earlier voter lists relate to a person located in some other village than the one of which the appellant claimed to be a resident. In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence, that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list entries.” (Para 15)
2. Name and lineage doubts:
-
- The Court questioned whether Joynal Abdin in 1966 and 1993 voter lists was the same person. Ages did not align; e.g., he was listed as 38 in 1966 and 70 in 1993 (should have been ~65).
- The father’s name appeared inconsistently, and the mother’s name (Sopia Bibi) was absent in crucial documents.
- The voter lists also showed unnatural age jumps, e.g., Majut Ali’s age was 30 in 1993 but 45 in 2010—missing consistency.
“Additionally, the High Court noticed that as per the affidavit of the appellant, Joynal Abdin Seikh was a resident of Daobhangi village whereas in the voter list of 1993, Joynal Abdin was shown as a resident of Kekurchar village, which is altogether different from the village of which the appellant claims to be a resident. Further, the High Court noticed that in the 1993 voters list, the name of the mother of the appellant, namely, Sopia Bibi, is conspicuous by its absence.” [Para 5 (vi)]
“As regards the voters list of 2010, the High Court observed that here Majut Ali’s age is shown as 45 years whereas in 1993 list it was 30 years therefore, in the 2010 voters list, it ought to have been 47 years. Besides above, there was a noticeable change in respect of the place of residence because in 1993 list, the village of domicile is shown as Kekurchar whereas in 2010 voter list it is Daobhangi.” [Para 5 (vii)]
3. School certificate deficiency:
-
- The certificate was a duplicate, issued ten years after the appellant allegedly left school.
- No explanation for delay in issuance or production.
- Crucially, the headmaster was not called to prove its contents, failing the test under the Evidence Act.
- Hence, the document’s probative value was discounted.
“Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.” (Para 15)
The Court emphasised that these deficiencies went beyond mere clerical errors. They showed a lack of effort by the appellant to resolve material inconsistencies through affidavit, oral evidence, or additional linkage documents.
On NRC inclusion and its legal consequence: On the question of whether the appellant’s inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC nullified the earlier FT declaration, the Court delivered an unequivocal “No.”
It relied heavily on:
- Rule 4A and Paragraph 3(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and
- The three-judge bench decision in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604.
As noted by the SC in its order, the Citizenship Rules clearly state that:
“…the names of persons who have been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall not be included in the consolidated list.” (Para 23)
In para 25–27, the Court emphasised:
- The Registering Authority under NRC has no power to override a quasi-judicial order of a Foreigners Tribunal.
- Even if a person’s name is erroneously included, that inclusion is legally ineffective unless the FT order is reversed by a higher court.
- The “competent authority” under the Citizenship Rules refers specifically to the Foreigners Tribunal, not administrative officers.
Therefore, even though the appellant’s name appeared in the draft NRC, the Supreme Court held that:
“In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.” (Para 27)
This closed the door on the appellant’s attempt to claim citizenship via NRC inclusion.
4. Final holding and consequences
After a detailed evaluation of both factual inconsistencies and legal standards, the Supreme Court held as follows:
- The FT’s findings, as affirmed by the Gauhati High Court, were not legally flawed, arbitrary, or perverse.
- The appellant’s inclusion in the draft NRC had no legal effect, given his prior declaration as a foreigner.
- The appellant had failed to prove his Indian citizenship, either by establishing consistent lineage or through rebutting the FT declaration.
- The interim release order granted in 2019 (based on NRC inclusion) was vacated.
“In light of the discussion above, and our conclusions on the issues referred to above, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The release order which was passed at an interim stage stands discharged. Consequently, the appellant shall be treated and dealt with as a foreigner.” (Para 30)
Notably, it is imperative to highlight here that the Court refrained from commenting on whether the NRC itself was legally flawed or reliable. Its approach was purely technical: an FT order, once passed, takes precedence unless overturned by a superior court—not by administrative inclusion.
The complete judgment may be read below.
Previous judicial treatment of documentary discrepancies
While the Supreme Court in Rofiqul Hoque adopted a stringent approach, other judgments have demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of documentary discrepancies, recognising the challenges faced by individuals in rural and marginalized communities.
- Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2014)
In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in his father’s name across various documents. The Tribunal noted variations such as “Samed Ali,” “Abdul Samed,” and “Samed.” The Gauhati High Court bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that such variations are common in rural areas, particularly among the Muslim community, and held that these discrepancies were not significant enough to draw an adverse inference regarding the petitioner’s citizenship.
“In so far discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father is concerned, it is a common phenomenon in rural areas, more particularly among people of Muslim community, to have more than one name or there being variation in the name such as in the name of the petitioner’s father. The discrepancy in the name as noticed- Samed Ali, Abdul Samed and Samed, is not so great as to draw adverse inference regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. On the ground of there being such discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father, petitioner could not have been declared as a foreigner.” (Para 11)
The Court also addressed discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, noting that minor differences in age declarations are expected in rural settings and should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.
2. Mamata Bhowmik v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2019)
The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, which rejected a certified copy of the 1966 voter list on the grounds that it lacked a physical signature and did not comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Gauhati High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its assessment, noting that the document was digitally signed and legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
“The certified copy also contains a further note that the certificate is digitally signed and, therefore, needs no physical signature… the certificate is legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.” (Para 3)
The Court emphasized the need for Tribunals to consider the authenticity and legal validity of documents, even when presented in digital form, and set aside the Tribunal’s order.
3. Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam (Supreme Court of India, 2019)
In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in the spelling of his grandfather’s name and differences in the villages listed in various documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Vineet Saran, however, found that the appellant had successfully established his lineage through consistent documentation of his father’s and grandfather’s identities, despite minor spelling variations. The Court held that such minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the appellant’s claim to citizenship.
“Having gone through these documents, we are of the view that it is not possible to state that Kematullah is not the same despite being named Kefatullah in some of the documents. This being so, the grandfather’s identity, father’s identity etc. has been established successfully by the appellant. Further, the mere fact that the father may later have gone to another village is no reason to doubt this document.” (Para 4)
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Foreigners Tribunal, thereby affirming the appellant’s Indian citizenship.
4. Mohammad Iddrish Ali v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2020)
In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner despite submitting multiple documents, including voter lists from 1965 and 1970 bearing his father’s and uncle’s names. The Tribunal disregarded these documents, citing the absence of the petitioner’s name in the 1975 voter list. The Gauhati High Court bench of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia found that the Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the evidence and emphasized that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in Tribunal proceedings.
“Reverting to the case in hand, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a tribunal. Nothing is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”
The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed a fresh opinion, highlighting the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence in such cases.
5. Jagat Bahadur Chetri v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2023)
An 85-year-old resident of Assam was declared a foreigner based on a reference by an election official, despite evidence of his birth in Assam in 1937 and decades of service as a civilian employee in the military. The Gauhati High Court criticised the “non-application of mind” by the election official and set aside the Tribunal’s ruling, ordering compensation for the petitioner.
“If Jagat Bahadur Chetri was born in the year 1937 and his place of birth is Dibrugarh and there is no material that subsequent to his birth, he migrated to the specified territory and thereafter re-entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971, we are of the view that it was an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to have referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal for an opinion as to whether the petitioner Jagat Bahadur Chetri is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.” (Para 4)
“It appears that the enquiring officer had not done its duty in the proper earnest and there can be no reason why the petitioner Jatat Bahadur Chetri would refuse to divulge the information that he was serving in Indian Army since 1963.” (Para 5)
“However, for causing inconvenience to the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without any application of mind, a cost of Rs. 10, 000/- (rupees ten thousand) is imposed on the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to be paid to the petitioner.” (Para 7)
This case highlights the importance of due diligence and the consideration of an individual’s lifelong ties to the country in citizenship determinations.
6. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2024)
In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner based on minor discrepancies in the spelling of names and dates in official documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such variations are common and often arise due to differences in language, pronunciation, and clerical errors. The Court emphasized that these minor inconsistencies should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.
“As far as the discrepancy (ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this.” (Para 41)
“The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages.” (Para 42)
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual.” (Para 43)
The Court also highlighted that the authorities must have a material basis for initiating proceedings under the Foreigners Act and that arbitrary or baseless suspicions cannot justify such actions. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, restoring the appellant’s citizenship. (Detailed analysis of the same judgment may be read here.)
Tightening the evidentiary threshold?
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India underscores a marked shift toward evidentiary stringency in citizenship adjudication under the Foreigners Act, 1946. By upholding the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, the Court reasserted two core principles: (1) that the burden of proof lies squarely on the proceedee under Section 9, and (2) that inclusion in the NRC—particularly a draft list—does not override a quasi-judicial declaration of foreign status.
What makes this decision legally significant is its departure from earlier jurisprudence that acknowledged the lived realities of individuals from rural and marginalized communities—realities that often produce inconsistencies in names, ages, and addresses in official records. Judgments such as Sirajul Hoque, Md. Rahim Ali, and Md. Anuwar Hussain adopted a more flexible, contextual reading of documentary discrepancies. In contrast, Rofiqul Hoque takes a formalistic approach, requiring strict evidentiary coherence even when documentary irregularities might stem from administrative lapses rather than wilful deceit.
This evolving judicial posture has far-reaching implications. It raises the evidentiary threshold for proving citizenship, heightens the risk of wrongful exclusion, and underscores the primacy of FT decisions over NRC data, regardless of administrative errors or procedural opacity in the latter. Going forward, both legal practitioners and claimants must place greater emphasis on reconciling all documentary inconsistencies through affidavits, oral testimony, and corroborative records.
In essence, Rofiqul Hoque reinforces the authority of Foreigners Tribunals and sets a cautionary precedent: in the current legal regime, technical lapses—even those reasonably explained—may carry irrevocable consequences for individuals seeking to prove their citizenship in Assam.
Image Courtesy: scobserver.in
Related:
From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre
Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam
Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp
SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam