Supreme Court Gives Assam 2 Weeks On Pleas Of 5 Women Declared Foreigners

The Supreme Court has granted two weeks to the Assam government to file its responses on pleas challenging orders declaring five women as foreigners who allegedly entered the state illegally.

The bench order thus after the counsel appearing for the Assam government sought time to file counter-affidavits in the five petitions

"As prayed, two weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Assam to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit(s) in all the cases. List after two weeks," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta have ordered.

In June, the court had ordered status quo on the deportation of the petitioners while agreeing to hear their pleas challenging separate orders of the Guwahati High Court.

The Gauhati High Court had earlier rejected the pleas filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the orders passed by the Foreigners Tribunals declaring them foreigners or illegal migrants who had illegally entered into India from Bangladesh.

Recently, the Supreme Court set aside a batch of judgments passed by the Gauhati High Court that had upheld the declaration of 27 appellants as foreigners, and remanded the cases to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeals, holding that questions relating to citizenship and foreigner status carry profound constitutional significance and must be determined through a process that is “fair, lawful and reasonable.”

“Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance,” the Court observed. The Court, however, also recognised the State’s interest in preventing illegal claims to Indian citizenship. “The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship do not secure such status by misuse of process, by false claim or by taking advantage of delays,” the Bench said.

At the same time, the Court stressed that such concerns cannot override procedural fairness. “At the same time, the determination of such status must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and reasonable. The statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 remains fully applicable,” it added.

Clarifying the scope of its intervention, the Bench stated that it had not examined the merits of the appellants’ claims to Indian citizenship. “We have not examined the merits of the claims of citizenship by the appellants or expressed any opinion on the genuineness, admissibility, relevance or sufficiency of any document relied upon by them. Those questions must be decided by the concerned Tribunal independently,” the Court said.

The Court further made it clear that the remand should not be treated as granting any equitable relief to the appellants. “The remand being directed is not intended to confer any equity in favour of a person who is unable to establish his or her claim. It is only to ensure that the serious consequence of being declared a foreigner follows from an adjudication which satisfies the requirements of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and the constitutional mandate of fairness,” the Bench observed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside both the impugned judgments of the Gauhati High Court and the corresponding opinions and orders passed by the Foreigners Tribunals. “The concerned Tribunals shall decide the cases afresh and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court or by the Tribunals in the earlier opinions,” the Court directed.

Case Title: BASIRAN NESSA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.ETC.

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Hearing Date: July 16, 2026