The Gauhati High Court confirms that the principle of res judicata is applicable in Foreigners Tribunal proceedings, following Supreme Court precedents, but holds that its application depends on proof of identity in subsequent proceedings. The Court also clarifies that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 (certiorari), it cannot engage in original fact-finding where such determination is required. This position upholds but further refines the existing judicial framework and provides binding authority for future Foreigners Tribunal cases in Assam.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/4801/2025 of JAMIRUDDIN MOLLAH Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS |
| CNR | GAHC010178702025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA; HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Kalyan Rai Surana, J.; Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s decisions (notably Abdul Kuddus) and Division Bench judgments |
| Type of Law | Public law; Immigration law—Foreigners Tribunal proceedings |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before Foreigners Tribunals as established by the Supreme Court, but requires factual determination of identity. In writ (certiorari) jurisdiction, the High Court cannot engage in original fact-finding and must remit the matter to the Tribunal for evidence and finding on identity, correcting only jurisdictional or legal errors. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order rejecting his plea to drop fresh proceedings on res judicata grounds, arguing he had been declared ‘not a foreigner’ earlier. Although particulars matched, the Tribunal required proof that the individual in both proceedings was the same. The High Court declined to determine identity in writ jurisdiction and remanded the matter for evidence and factual finding, directing application of res judicata if identity is established. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Foreigners Tribunals and subordinate courts within Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court on res judicata application and procedural handling in Foreigners Tribunals |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that res judicata applies to Foreigners Tribunal proceedings only upon proof of identity in successive cases.
- The High Court cannot engage in original fact-finding (e.g., verifying identity) in certiorari jurisdiction; this is for the Tribunal on remand.
- Lawyers must ensure evidence and documents proving identity are produced before the Tribunal at the earliest stage.
- The proper procedure is remand to the Tribunal for factual determination where res judicata is pleaded but unestablished on evidence.
- The decision clarifies the distinction between the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction and the fact-finding/original jurisdiction of Tribunals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Applicability of Res Judicata: Reaffirmed that res judicata applies fully to quasi-judicial bodies like Foreigners Tribunals for status determinations.
- Precedent Chain: Followed authority from Abdul Kuddus and subsequent cases (Tarabanu Begum, Swapan Dutta, Rejia Khatun, Sital Mandal) and the Court’s own ruling in Jahir Ali.
- Procedural Requirement for Res Judicata: Emphasized that identity of parties in successive proceedings must be shown on evidence, a factual question for the Tribunal.
- Limits of Certiorari Jurisdiction: Citing Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Hari Vishnu Kamath, clarified that the High Court cannot act as an appellate fact-finder but only correct jurisdictional or legal errors.
- Remand Direction: Remitted matter to the Tribunal to allow the petitioner to prove identity; if established, res judicata must be applied.
- Opportunity for State: Allowed the State to adduce evidence disputing identity, leaving fact-finding to the Tribunal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Prior Tribunal order declared him ‘not a foreigner’; res judicata bars repeat proceedings.
- Personal particulars are verifiable via case records; the Tribunal should have dropped the second proceeding.
- Relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents applying res judicata to Foreigners Tribunal judgments.
Respondent (State/Foreigners Tribunal/Election Commission/NRC)
- The Tribunal must decide the reference under its statutory mandate.
- Res judicata principles are only partly applicable; Section 11 CPC does not formally apply under Order 4 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
- Strict proof regarding identity is required before applying res judicata.
- Cited Jahir Ali v. Union of India, where the matter was remanded due to lack of proof of identity.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Jamiruddin Mollah, was declared not to be a foreigner in F.T. Case No. 127/2016 based on evidence including electoral rolls. A fresh reference (F.T. Case No. 36/2019) was then initiated against a person with the same name, parentage, and village. The Tribunal refused res judicata, citing absence of proof that both proceedings involved the same individual. The petitioner challenged this refusal in the Gauhati High Court, seeking direct application of res judicata and quashing of the current reference.
Statutory Analysis
- Relied on the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 (Order 4) to assess applicability of CPC principles.
- Interpreted Section 11 CPC’s res judicata principle as applicable to quasi-judicial orders determining merit.
- Discussed scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, noting that certiorari does not vest appellate or original fact-finding power in the High Court.
- Referenced statutory and constitutional limits on the High Court’s role in reviewing Tribunal findings—correcting only legal or jurisdictional errors, not factual disputes.
Procedural Innovations
- Prescribes remand to the Foreigners Tribunal for identity determination in fact-sensitive res judicata claims, rather than deciding on affidavits alone in writ jurisdiction.
- Reinforces that evidence supporting res judicata must be produced before the Tribunal initially, not solely at the writ stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows Supreme Court decisions and co-ordinate Bench rulings on res judicata’s applicability to quasi-judicial bodies like Foreigners Tribunals.