Supreme Court Upholds Declaration Of Bangladeshi Woman With Aadhar And Voter ID As Illegal Migrant
The Petitioner was declared an illegal migrant in 2005, with the Courts finding that she had entered India after March 25, 1971, and had subsequently relied on forged documents to falsely claim Indian citizenship.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice SVN Bhatti, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a woman challenging her declaration as an illegal migrant under the now-repealed Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983.
The Petitioner, Jahura Khatun, had approached the Supreme Court seeking to overturn findings by the IMDT Tribunal, the Foreigners Tribunal, and the Gauhati High Court, all of which had independently concluded that she had illegally entered India from Bangladesh after March 25, 1971.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the three Courts below. Therefore, we are not satisfied that any case for interference is made out under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
Advocate of Record Abdul Qadir Abbasi represented the Petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the Union of India.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was declared an illegal migrant by the IMDT Tribunal under Section 3(1)(c) of the IMDT Act, 1983. The Tribunal recorded that she entered India from Bangladesh after March 25, 1971. The Petitioner did not file a written statement or produce any documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The case proceeded ex parte, and the declaration attained finality.
Years later, she sought to recall the Tribunal’s declaration, claiming lack of knowledge and improper service of summons. She also challenged the subsequent rejection of her plea by the Foreigners Tribunal. The Gauhati High Court found her claims unsupported and her documents manipulated.
In its petition, she stated, “The summons were served on a woman having name of Hazera Khatun on 25.03.2005 and that woman has put her thumb impression, however Petitioner herein is capable enough to make her signatures and she is not illiterate.”
She further claimed, “The Petitioner being a purdanashin lady and a resident of remote village, her husband did not allow her to challenge the order of IMDT... and always restrained her in moving to the court, thus the delay occurred in challenging the order.”
She asserted that, “Wrong entries made in documents like Aadhar Card and Voter Card were prepared at the instance of her in-laws and not by her parental side. She was not allowed by her in-laws to move out of the house and thus she did not get the opportunity to prove her citizenship.”
On the alleged fabrication of documents, she contended, “She was not the person who went to apply or get those documents made. She did not even go to the registration centre where the biometric documents were made. It is her in-laws who made such documents without her knowledge.”
In its counter affidavit, the Union of India submitted, “The Petitioner was served with summons in accordance with law and appeared before the IMDT Tribunal. She took several adjournments but ultimately failed to submit any reply or documents and chose to allow the proceedings to go ex parte.”
The Union contended that the claims made in the SLP were an afterthought, stating, “The present petition seeks to reopen issues already adjudicated upon with finality. The vague and sweeping assertions that her in-laws prevented her from defending the proceedings are clearly an attempt to delay the implementation of lawful orders.”
It was further submitted, “The Petitioner has abused the legal process and has not explained why she obtained documents like Aadhaar Card and Voter ID after being declared a foreigner. These documents were clearly obtained in violation of law.”
The High Court had earlier observed, “It is really very surprising that even after her declaration as an illegal migrant... Petitioner has got an identity card in her name from Election Commission of India in 2013, enlisted herself as a voter... and obtained an Aadhar Card when it is in public domain that in so far as the State of Assam is concerned, process of issuing Aadhar Card to the citizens is yet to commence.”
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the Illegal Migrants Tribunal, the Foreigners Tribunal, and the Gauhati High Court had all independently arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner was not an Indian citizen. Taking note of the consistency of these findings, the Court observed that there was no reason to interfere.
The Bench stated, “We are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the three Courts below.”
The Court further held that the case did not meet the threshold required for invocation of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Jahura Khatun v. Union of India & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 6872-6873/2021)
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Abdul Qadir Abbasi
Respondents: ASG Archana Pathak Dave; Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma; Advocates Chitrangda Rastravara, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Mani Munjal
