Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs The State of Assam
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Forum: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.-007332-007332 - 2024
Date of Decision: July 11, 2024  

Facts and Procedural Background:

  • Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim (Appellant), an Assam resident, claimed that his parents' names were listed in the 1965 and 1970 voter lists, showing their residence in Village Dolur Pather. He was born in the same village and later moved to Village Kashimpur, Nalbari, after his marriage in 1997.
  • The case arose when the Appellant's nationality was doubted, and a case was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari, in 2006 (F.T. (Nal) Case No. (N)/1096/06). The Appellant was unable to provide sufficient evidence under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to prove his Indian citizenship, leading the tribunal to pass an ex-parte order on 19.03.2012 declaring him a foreigner.
  • The Appellant could not file his Written Statement in response to the tribunal's notice due to serious health issues. He later provided a medical certificate from a consultant doctor at Civil Hospital, Nalbari, dated 24.04.2012, confirming that he suffered from Chronic Bronchitis and respiratory problems from 25.11.2011 to 24.04.2012.
  • The Appellant challenged the tribunal’s order by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2668 of 2012 before the Gauhati High Court on 30.05.2012. On 06.06.2012, the High Court granted an interim stay, preventing the Appellant from being deported to Bangladesh. However, on 23.11.2015, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal’s decision.
  • The Appellant approached the Supreme Court, challenging the dismissal of his writ petition and seeking to affirm the Tribunal’s order by the Gauhati High Court.


Main Issue:

Whether Section 9 of the Act grants the Executive the authority to arbitrarily target individuals and accuse them of being foreigners and rely on Section 9 to shift the burden of proof onto the accused?