Foreigners Act Section 9: Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam

Authorities Must Have and Share Material Before Calling a Person a Foreigner: Supreme Court Declares Assam Man Indian

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which puts on a person the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner, does not let the State pick anyone at random. Authorities must hold some material basis for suspicion and share the main grounds and that material before the burden shifts. Finding no such material and only minor spelling and date discrepancies, it set aside the Tribunal's orders and declared the appellant an Indian citizen (paras 34-35, 39, 55).

Key holdings

A vague allegation mirroring the statutory language cannot start proceedings with life-altering consequences (paras 35, 37).

Minor discrepancies in name spellings and dates in electoral rolls do not discredit genuine documents (paras 41, 44).

Natural justice is read into proceedings under the Foreigners Act even where the statute is silent (para 39).

Instead of remanding, the Court itself declared the appellant an Indian citizen (para 55).

The judgment is to be circulated to the Tribunals constituted under the 1964 Order (para 58).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In 2006 a case doubting the appellant's nationality was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari, on the allegation that he had migrated illegally from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971 (paras 4, 30). He appeared and sought time for a written statement but, claiming illness, did not file one, and the Tribunal declared him a foreigner ex parte on 19.03.2012 (paras 6-7). The Gauhati High Court dismissed his writ petition on 23.11.2015 (paras 3, 8). On this Court's order of 28.07.2017 the Tribunal heard him and on 16.11.2017 again held him a foreigner (paras 11, 54). He relied on voter lists from 1965 onwards (paras 4, 43).

Court's Findings

Section 8 of the Act did not apply, so the case fell under Section 9, which places the onus on the person proceeded against (paras 20-21, 33). Yet Section 9 does not let the executive pick a person at random and rest on the burden, and here the record was silent on why the police inquiry began (para 34). Authorities must first have some material or information to suspect that a person is a foreigner, and a bald allegation copying the statutory words cannot shift the burden (para 35). Having named his supposed village of origin in Bangladesh, the authority had to show the material behind it, and none was given (paras 36-37). 'Main grounds' in Para 3(1) of the 1964 Order are not the same as the allegation, and this error was fatal from the start (para 38). Audi alteram partem includes sharing the material collected, though its evidentiary value is not tested at that stage (para 39). Minor mismatches of spellings and dates in electoral rolls cannot defeat a claim (paras 41-42). The statutory burden arises only after this initial stage (para 50).

Legal Principle

Before the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act shifts to a person, the authorities must possess some material basis for suspecting that he is a foreigner and must share the main grounds and that material with him; natural justice requires this even though the statute is silent (paras 35, 38-39, 50).

Precedents Relied Upon

Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13, 15, 21, 50
The burden of proving citizenship rests on the person concerned, as the facts lie within his knowledge.
Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 174
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 49, 50
No genuine citizen should be thrown out; a person claiming citizenship is entitled to all procedural safeguards.
Abdul Kuddus v Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 604
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12, 21, 22
A person already declared a foreigner by a Tribunal has no NRC appeal and may seek writ review in the High Court.

View all precedents (6)

Mangilal v State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 2 SCC 447
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 39
Principles of natural justice are read into a statute even when it is silent.
Mukesh Singh v State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 47, 53
In reverse-burden cases the presumption operates only after the initial burden on the prosecution is met.
Union of India v Ghaus Mohammad 1961 SCC OnLine SC 2
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 51, 52, 53
The onus under Section 9 is on the person; its facts differed from the case at hand.

Statutory Provisions