The Supreme Court has ruled that a foreigners tribunal did not have the power to review its own verdicts.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that once a foreigners tribunal passed an order, the only remedy available with it was to challenge it’s decision before a higher forum.
The tribunal itself could not sit in appeal over its own concluded judgment, it noted.
The Apex Court made these observations while setting aside a review order against a woman in Assam who had already been declared an Indian citizen by a prior ruling of the tribunal.
The Bench further set aside the December 24, 2019 verdict passed by the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the tribunal’s review order.
The top court of the country found that the High Court missed the real issue, while upholding the successive reference made by the tribunal against the woman, one Rejia Khatun.
The real issue was whether the tribunal could have reopened the case by recording a finding that it could scrutinise the findings recorded by the same tribunal in an earlier judgment which had become final.
Noting that the tribunal was powerless to review its own judgment, the Apex Court set aside the High Court order.
The case pertained to two contradictory orders passed by the foreigners tribunal regarding the citizenship status of Rejia Khatun.
On February 15, 2018, the tribunal had declared that she was not a foreigner after considering oral and documentary evidence. The State of Assam had participated in those proceedings and did not challenge the order.
In 2019, however, a fresh reference was made in relation to the matter, and the tribunal proceeded to scrutinise the documents again, ultimately reopening the case and directing the woman to file a written statement.
The top court of the country took exception to this and made it clear that the tribunal was not empowered to revisit its own findings in the absence of a statutory provision permitting such review.
It further pointed out that the State did not appeal the first order from 2018 or seek its recall, and yet the tribunal initiated fresh proceedings on the same issue, which was impermissible.