A person declared 'Indian' by FTs cannot be declared foreigner by tribunal for second time: HC
Guwahati(PTI): The Gauhati High Court has ruled that if a person has been declared an Indian citizen by a Foreigners Tribunal in Assam, they cannot be tried for a second time in the tribunal and declared a foreigner.
A Division Bench of Justice N Kotiswara Singh and Malashri Nandy in a recent order, passed on a set of 12 petitions, stated that the principle of 'res judicata' (meaning that once the matter has been decided it cannot be reopened by the same parties), was applicable to the Foreigners Tribunals in the state.
The High Court observed that the common theme which runs through the batch of writ petitions filed before them is the applicability of the principle of 'res judicata'.
The petitioners contention are based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of one Abdul Kuddus that subsequent proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals are barred by the principle of 'res judicata'.
The court directed that whenever a petitioner takes the plea of applicability of 'res judicata' on the ground that he had already been declared not an Indian by the FT in an earlier proceeding, the tribunal has to first determine whether the petitioner is the same person who was proceeded in the earlier case or not.
''For that purpose, there can be examination of evidence in the form of oral documents and evidence and if the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the person was the same as in the earlier proceeding, there is no need to go into the merit of the case any further'', the judges ruled.
On the plea of applicability of 'res judicata', the subsequent proceeding shall be closed, without any further examination, on the basis of the earlier opinion that the person was not a foreigner, the order stated.
The order is a reiteration of a similar judgement passed by the Gauhati High Court in December 2021 where it was observed that the Supreme Court's decision on the principle of 'res judicata' applicable even in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal also makes the FT's opinion not sustainable as that issue had already been settled.
A Division bench had ordered the release of Hasina Bhanu alias Hasna Bhanu from Tezpur Jail, as she was declared 'Indian' in 2016 and again a 'foreigner' in 2021 by the same FT, and, therefore, the proceedings against her cannot be sustained as it was the same person in both the cases.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
