Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act 1983 – Parichay

Challenging Ex Parte Orders on the Ground of Improper Service of Notice

February 11, 2021May 18, 2021 parichayteam1 Comment

This research note is part of Parichay’s ongoing project to study, track, and publish key propositions and latest developments in citizenship law and adjudication in India.

Relevant Statutes/Rules/Orders:

Paragraph 3C of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 provides for applying before the FT for setting aside an ex parte order within thirty (30) days from the date of the said FT Opinion in the following words:

“3C. Procedure for setting aside ex parte order:

Where the Foreigners’ Tribunal has passed an ex parte order for non-appearance of the proceedee and he or she has sufficient cause for not appearing before the Foreigners’ Tribunal, it may, on the application of the proceedee, if filed within thirty days of the said order, set aside its ex parte order and decide the case accordingly.
- The Proceedee may file an application to the Foreigner Tribunal within thirty days to review the decision of the Foreigners’ Tribunal claiming that he/she is not a foreigner and the Foreigners’ Tribunal may review its decision within thirty days of the receipt of such application and decide the case on merits.
- Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Foreigners Tribunal shall have the powers to regulate its own procedure for disposal of the cases expeditiously in a time bound manner.”
Full Bench Decision in State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal, 2013 (1) GLT 809:

Important Extracts on the Issue of Service:

“[80] The procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable in a proceeding before the Tribunal, except in relation to the matter stipulated in clause 4 of the said Order.

[99] One of the most important stages is, apart from serving the main grounds on which the proceedee is alleged to be a foreigner, just and proper service of notice. The 1964 Order also envisage giving a reasonable opportunity to the proceedee to demonstrate that he is not a foreigner. Unless the Tribunal ensures just and proper service of notice, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity would be defeated. The same would also then violate the basic principles of natural justice.

[100] Though the Tribunals under the 1964 Order, as amended by the 2012 Order, can regulate its own procedure for disposal of the reference proceeding, it is seen from various cases that no uniform procedure is adopted by the Tribunals in the matter of service of notice. Unless there is proper service of notice it cannot be said that the person against whom such notice is issued is treated fairly and he has been given a fair trial.

[101] The proceeding before the Tribunal being quasi-judicial and in the nature of civil proceeding, in our considered opinion, the procedure for service of notice has to be evolved in the light of the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for service of summons on the defendants in a civil suit. The proper service of notice also assumes importance as the Tribunal has to render its opinion also in an ex-parte proceeding, on the question referred to it, even in the absence of any evidence on record and solely on the basis of materials initially submitted by the referral authority before the Tribunal and at the time of making the reference, as the referral authority is not required to adduce any evidence to substantiate that the proceedee is not a foreigner, which burden, in view of Section 9 of the 1946 Act, lies on the proceedee.

[102] The procedure laid down herein below shall apply to all the proceedings pending before the Tribunal where the notices are either yet to be issued or issued but not yet served:

The proceedee shall be served with the notice, together with the main grounds on which he is suspected to be a foreigner, as far as practicable, personally, whose signature/thumb impression, as proof of service, is to be obtained.
Such notice shall be issued in the address where the proceedee last resided or reportedly resides or works for gain. In case of change of place of residence, which has been duly intimated in writing to the investigating agency by the proceedee, the Tribunal shall issue a notice in such changed address.
The notice shall be issued by the Tribunal in the official language of the State also indicating that the burden is on the proceedee to prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner.
The service of notice on any adult member of the family of the proceedee, in case he is found to be not present at the time of service, shall constitute the service on the proceedee. In token of such service, the name and signature/thumb impression of such adult member shall be obtained. In case such adult member refuses to put the signature or thumb impression, a report in that regard shall be submitted.
If the proceedee or any available adult member of his family refuses to accept the notice, the process server has to give a report in that regard along with the name and address of a person of the locality, who was present at the time of making such an effort to get the notices served, provided such person is available and willing to be a witness to such service. The signature/thumb impression of such witness, if present and willing, must be obtained.
In case the proceedee has changed the place of residence or place of work, without intimation to the investigating agency, a report in that regard shall be submitted by the process server. A copy of the notice shall then be affixed in a conspicuous place where the proceedee last resided or reportedly resided or worked for gain, containing the name and address of a respectable person of the locality, if available and willing to be a witness for that purpose. The signature/thumb impression of such person, in that case, shall also be obtained in the said report.
Where the proceedee or any adult member of his family are not found in the residence, a copy of the notice shall be pasted in a conspicuous place of his residence, witnessed by 1(one) respectable person of the locality, subject to his availability and willingness to be a witness in that regard. In that case, the signature or thumb impression of that person shall also be obtained in proof of the manner in which such service is effected.
Where the proceedee resides outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the notice has to be sent for service to the officer-in-charge of the police station within whose jurisdiction the proceedee resides or last resided or last known to have been resided or works for gain. The process server shall then cause the service of notice in the manner as provided hereinabove.
In case no person is available or willing to be the witness of service of notice, as mentioned above, or refused to put his signature or thumb impression, a signed certificate/verification is to be filed by the process server to that effect, which shall be sufficient proof of such non-availability, unwillingness and refusal.”

3. Amendment to the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964:

Pursuant to the guidelines in State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (supra), paragraph 3(5) of Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, was amended by way of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Amendment Order, 2013, vide Order No. GSR 770(E) dated 10.12.2013 to include the said guidelines.

Table of Cases

S. No.	CASE NAME	FACTS	DECISION
	Abdul Barek vs Union of India WP(C) No. 2989 of 2018	Upon being approached for receiving the notice, the petitioner refused to accept the same. Accordingly, notice put up on the wall of the house of the petitioner	[5] Refusal of notice cannot be construed to be a service of the notice under Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order. 1964. [6] As the notice was not served on the petitioners, we, therefore, set aside the order. But at the same time, we also cannot be oblivious to the fact as per the report of the process server the petitioner had refused to accept the notice. Although in the course of the present proceeding, the petitioner seeks to justify the same by stating that her name was incorrectly written in the notice of the Tribunal but incorrect spelling of the name cannot be the basis for a proceedee to refuse to accept the notice. If there is any doubt on the mind of the proceedee that the notice may actually have been meant for some other person, it is for the proceedee to appear before the Tribunal and bring to its notice for verification as to whether the person appearing before the Tribunal was itself the person upon whom the notice was intended. [7] As the petitioners are declared to be foreigners without appropriate materials on record for adjudication on merit, we are of the view that the petitioners deserve another opportunity. But at the same time as the petitioners had refused to accept the notice, from that point of view, there cannot be any infirmity in the order dated 28.9.2016. (Costs imposed on the petitioners and case sent to FT for hearing)
	Abdus Salam vs Union of India WP(C) 1357/2019	Petitioner could not be traced out at the appropriate place; the signature of the house owner was taken as a witness. The Report also doesn’t indicate where the notice was kept hanging	The manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Abul Hussain vs Union of India WP(C) 44/2019	Petitioner could not be traced, after taking signature in the main copy, the duplicate was hung. The report silent on whose signature was taken & where the notice was hung.	The manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Ahmed Darbesh vs Union of India WP(C) 354/2019	Petitioner not found in the given address; notice served on another person who according to the process server was the maternal uncle of the petitioner.	We are of the view that in the manner, the notice was served as indicated by the process server, the same is not in conformity with the requirement of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Atabur Rahman Vs Union of India WP(C) 45/2019	Petitioner not found in the address; notice was hanged on a tree in a public place.	We are of the view that in the manner, the notice was served as indicated by the process server, the same is not in conformity with the requirement of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Babul Hussain vs Union of India WP(C) 60/2019	Petitioner couldn’t be located meaning thereby that the notice remained unserved.	In view of the procedural aberration of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, we are of the view that the manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Benu Bhowmick vs Union of India WP(C) 4974/2018	The notice in a substituted manner was served as the petitioner was not found at her address. The Tribunal relied upon the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Daulat A. 1967 SC 1952 which was as follows: “Substitute service is a valid service even through no copy is affixed in the court. House, affixing in the last residence is sufficient.” The said pronouncement of the Supreme Court was in a proceeding under the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has its own prescribed procedure for service of notice.	[7] We have perused the report of the process server which provides that as the petitioner was not found in the address given, therefore, a copy of the same was hung. But the report of the process server does not state as to where the notice was hung. [8] In view of the above, we are of the view that the manner in which the notice was served is at variance from the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(5)(F) of Foreigners (Tribunal) Order 1964. [9] In view of the procedural aberration of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, we are of the view that the manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Farida Begam Vs Union of India WA 333/2015	Notices of the proceeding issued by the Tribunal were served thrice, on the first two occasions on her husband and on the third occasion on her brother.	[11] The Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, as amended, makes it abundantly clear that in the absence of the proceedee, notice can be validly served on any adult member of the family. Therefore, a plea of the appellant regarding nonreceipt of notice is untenable and cannot be accepted. (Writ petition dismissed)
	Fazina Khatun vs Union of India WP(C) 7454/2018	Petitioner had changed her place of residence without intimation, a copy of the Notice affixed/pasted on the wall where the petitioner last resided. The fact of service of Notice in the substituted manner, as above, is also recorded by the Tribunal.	[5] Having regard to the above, we find that there was due compliance of service of Notice in substituted manner, as required to be done under Clause 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. From the Service Report, it clearly transpires that copy of the Notice was affixed on the outer wall of the house in which the petitioner last resided. In this connection, we may also place on record that according to the petitioner she is still living in the same village. [6] Despite Service of Notice in substituted manner in accordance with law, the petitioner neglected to appear before the Tribunal and/or to file written statement. [7] …grant of fair and reasonable opportunity cannot be enlarged to an endless exercise. A person who is not diligent and/or is unmindful in taking steps to safeguard his/her interest, he/she does so at his/her own risk and peril. In a situation where no evidence is adduced or the burden is not discharged, the only option left to the Tribunal would be to declare the proceedee to be a foreigner, based on the grounds of reference upon which appropriate proceeding was initiated, notice was duly issued and duly served upon the proceedee in accordance with law (Writ petition was dismissed)
	Malekjan Bibi vs Union of India WP(C) 1142/2019	Petitioner not found at her place of residence, notice hung at a conspicuous place of the village in presence of a witness and submitted report.”	Hanging of the notice at a conspicuous place of the village in presence of witnesses is contrary to the requirement of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964. It is taken note that the report of the process server does not even indicate as to where the notice of the petitioner was kept hanging. The manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Monir Uddin vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 219 of 2019	Non-availability of the proceedees at their given address. The process server thus served notice by hanging. The order does not clearly show as to in what manner the hanging was made.	In view of the procedural aberration of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, we are of the view that the manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (Order of FT set aside)
	Muzibur Rahman vs Union of India WP(C) 6404/2019	As the petitioner could not be found, a copy of the notice was affixed on the notice board of the office of the Gaonburah.	[6] Having regard to the manner of service, as above, we are of the considered view that substituted service of notice, as required to be done under 3(5)(g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, was not complied with. We are also of the view that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of hearing to contest the case on merits. It clearly appears that no notice was served on the petitioner by affixing a copy of the notice pasted in a conspicuous place of his residence, witnessed by one respectable person of the locality who has given his signature or thumb impression and has agreed to be available and stand as a witness with regard to such service of notice. (Order of FT set aside)
	Sahinur Islam vs Union of India WP(C) 7818/2019	As the petitioner was not available in the given address, notice was returned unserved.	[5] Having regard to the admitted fact that service of notice was not effected in any manner on the petitioner, as required to be done under Paragraph 3(5) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, we are of the view that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of hearing to contest the case on merits. (Order of FT set aside)

The Indian Judiciary and Its Record on Statelessness

January 25, 2021 parichayteam1 Comment

Anushri Uttarwar is a fourth-year B.BA. LL.B.(Hons.) student and Student Fellow at Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School. Arunima Nair is a second-year LL.B. student at Jindal Global Law School and an Editor of the Parichay Blog. Anushri and Arunima are among the authors of Securing Citizenship: India’s legal obligations towards precarious citizens and stateless persons, released in November 2020.

Securing Citizenship highlights India’s legal obligations towards stateless persons and precarious citizens within its territory. It does so by expounding the applicable international human rights framework to the state, with every person’s right to nationality and every state’s duty to prevent statelessness as its two integral interwoven threads. Additionally, the report links the said international framework to the Indian state’s corresponding obligations under present domestic law. This article discusses one such aspect viz. the approach of Indian courts in cases involving persons of uncertain nationalities.

The Indian state’s efforts to uphold every individual’s right to nationality and its duty to avoid and reduce statelessness have been minimal. It has not signed either of the two international conventions on statelessness and has not actively engaged in any global efforts to fight statelessness. As we have noted in our report, neither the Foreigners Act, nor the Citizenship Act, nor the Passport Act and their attendant rules, account for the legal lacunas that can create statelessness. The statutory terms ‘illegal migrant’, ‘foreigner’, and ‘citizen’ cannot be interchangeably applied to a stateless person. The present citizenship determination regime, which places the burden of proof upon the impugned individual and suffers from a well-documented lack of functional independence and procedural safeguards, has actively jeopardized the citizenship status of 1.9 million individuals in Assam in August 2019 (with subsequent deletions and an ongoing Government-led demand for 10-20% re-verification of the 2019 NRC).

The Indian judiciary’s record on this front has been mixed. The Supreme Court’s judgments in the Sarbananda Sonowal cases (2005 and 2006) decisively laid down the roadmap governing citizenship determination in India. In these cases, the petitioners had impugned the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983 (‘IMDT’) and the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006, both of which placed the onus upon the state to prove an individual’s foreigner status. The Court agreed and struck them down as unconstitutional. It anchored its reasoning in a broad interpretation of “external aggression” in Article 355 of the Constitution, stating that a “vast and incessant flow of millions” of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam was akin to a “war”, posing a serious existential threat to the economic and social fabric of Assamese society. The Bench cast it as the Central Government’s “foremost duty” to protect its citizens from such aggression; statutes like the IMDT made it far too “cumbersome” to detect and deport foreigners and fulfill this duty, as opposed to the far more “effective” Foreigners Act. Sarbananda Sonowal is still good law; it is the underlying foundation for subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as the one kick-starting the updation of the NRC and its eventual monitoring of the modalities of the entire NRC exercise.

Nevertheless, the Indian Judiciary has occasionally taken cognizance of the tumultuous issue at hand. In each of those occasions where the courts decided to address the said issue, they have consistently observed the insufficiency of domestic laws addressing statelessness and the disastrous consequences of statelessness. These observations have aided them in interpreting the existing domestic statutes liberally so as to prevent the individual in question from being rendered stateless. Interestingly, in these cases, while the courts reasoned their judgments in line with international law on statelessness, they did not make concrete references to it. Four such cases have been outlined below.

In Gangadhar Yeshwanth Bhandare, the respondent was found to have been a part of a secret Indian governmental mission. His participation in that mission had caused him delay in adhering to the guidelines that had to be followed by those in pre-liberation Portuguese territories who wanted to be considered Indian citizens. It was then alleged that he was not an Indian citizen. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was indeed an Indian citizen since he had renounced his Portuguese nationality already and to hold him to not be an Indian citizen at this stage would render him stateless. Such a consequence was unacceptable for the Court.

Similarly, in Jan Balaz, the Gujarat High Court interpreted the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 liberally to prevent the chances of the children born to an Indian surrogate from becoming stateless. The court observed that the children in question would not be able to claim citizenship by birth in Germany (due to the country not recognising surrogacy). It observed that they would have been rendered stateless if they were not accorded Indian citizenship, thereby affirming that they would be eligible for Indian citizenship by birth.

In Prabhleen Kaur, the petitioner’s nationality was suspected, thereby causing her passport renewal application to be rejected by the relevant authority. The Delhi High Court held that rejecting her application on a mere doubt is manifestly unjust at that stage, as it could leave her stateless, indicating that she can only be ascribed an Indian nationality.

Once again, in Ramesh Chennamaneni the Telangana High Court pioneeringly held that the power of the Indian government to deprive one’s citizenship under Section 10 of the Act is restricted by several constraints, including the duty of a state to avoid statelessness within its territory. Since in the situation before it, deprivation of citizenship would result in the petitioner being left stateless, the court set aside the committee decision that cancelled his citizenship.

Apart from circumstances where a petitioner was at the risk of statelessness by virtue of the (in)actions of the Indian state, Indian courts have also acknowledged the need to legally recognize the status of stateless persons existent on Indian territory. By this we mean persons in India who have been rendered stateless by the actions of another state, not India. The Delhi High Court in Sheikh Abdul Aziz (W.P. (Crl.) 1426/2013) was confronted with a petitioner who had been languishing in immigration detention, far beyond his initial sentence under the Foreigners Act. The petitioner’s nationality determination had failed i.e. the Government could not confirm which nationality the man belonged to. The Court here pulled up the Government for its inaction in issuing a stateless certificate to the petitioner, and directed it to do so as the necessary first step towards the petitioner’s overdue release from detention. The stateless certificate, and the subsequent granting of a Long-Term Visa, were essential steps to ensure the petitioner did not become a phantom within the legal and civic community.

Moreover, our report also argues that stateless certificates cannot and should not operate as obstacles to any application for citizenship. The Indian state has an obligation under international law to prevent and reduce statelessness, and to ensure that individuals can enjoy their right to nationality. Stateless individuals must not be stateless in perpetuity; their continuous residence and community ties in India should entitle them to be naturalised as citizens, per the procedures for naturalization. In the celebrated Chakma case, the Supreme Court created precedent by holding that stateless individuals like the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh had a statutory right to be considered for Indian citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Local administrative officials therefore had no grounds for stalling and refusing to forward Chakma individuals’ citizenship applications. The Delhi High Court, in a subsequent case dealing with a plea by a Tibetan individual who was born in India in 1986 to two Tibetan refugees, held that the petitioner’s stateless identity certificate did not bar her from being eligible for Indian citizenship by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, and directed the MEA to process her application expeditiously.

The pattern of the judiciary utilising international law standards on statelessness continues even in cases where the Court could not come to a decision immediately in favor of the petitioner, as the Patna High Court did recently in Kiran Gupta v State Election Commission. The appellant here was challenging an Election Commission decision that cancelled her Panchayat electoral victory, on the grounds that she was not an Indian citizen when elected. She was a Nepali citizen at birth, and had resided in India and raised her family for 17 years since her marriage to her Indian husband, along with possessing a Voter ID, a PAN card, and property in her name here. She had even terminated her Nepali citizenship in 2016. However, she admitted that she had failed to register for Indian citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act.

The Court’s hands were tied: the conferral of Indian citizenship is clearly an Executive function, with the various procedures laid out in the statute. It held that it could not step into the shoes of the Executive and declare her an Indian citizen. Despite this, however, the Court demonstrated sensitivity towards the petitioner’s unusual situation. She was caught in a precarious situation where she possessed neither Indian nor Nepali documents of citizenship. In its final few pages, the Court crucially reiterates the duty upon the Indian state to prevent and reduce statelessness, in spite of signing neither statelessness convention. India has signed and ratified several other human rights treaties with provisions limiting nationality deprivation, such as the ICCPR, CEDAW, ICERD, and CRC. In its operative portion, the Court directed the Government to be mindful of the petitioner’s peculiar circumstances as and when she applies for citizenship. The Patna High Court demonstrates the capacity of courts to step in and affirm the internationally recognised and binding duties to prevent and reduce statelessness.

At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the aforementioned cases present what we would consider ‘aspirational’ statelessness jurisprudence in the context of India. They are, unfortunately, exceptions rather than the norm: a litany of court decisions follow the overarching rationale of Sarbananda Sonowal and are either unaware of or wholly indifferent to individuals’ right against arbitrary deprivation of citizenship and the duty to prevent statelessness under international law. Foreigners Tribunals (‘FTs’) have consistently been passing orders that are arbitrary and ripe with procedural inadequacies, thereby designating an increasing number of individuals as foreigners. Adverse FT decisions are based on any and every minute clerical error or inconsistencies within their documents. Many such decisions have been upheld on appeal in the Gauhati High Court; as an indicative selection, in Nur Begum v Union of India and Sahera Khatun v Union of India, the burden of proof as per Section 9 of the Foreigners Act was interpreted stringently as one that rests absolutely upon the proceedee. In Jabeda Begum v Union of India, 15 official documents were found to be insufficient to discharge the said burden.

To conclude, given the polar contrasts within the Indian statelessness jurisprudence, the judiciary’s role will remain incomplete unless accompanied by comprehensive legislative and policy changes. This would require India to not just formally accede to the 1954 and 1961 Conventions, but to also reform its current citizenship framework and explicitly allow for the expedited naturalisation of stateless persons. One hopes that the Executive catches up soon and fortifies its obligation.