The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a remedy for persistent neglect, particularly in proceedings concerning citizenship status where procedural delays and repeated non-appearance undermine the integrity of the process. The dismissal of this writ petition underscores the court’s strict stance on conduct-based eligibility for relief in sensitive immigration matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sultana Begum @ Sultana Khan @ Sutrabibi Begum, is a resident of Darjee Basti, Balipara, Sonitpur, Assam, who was declared a foreigner by an ex parte order passed by Foreigners Tribunal No. 7, Tezpur, on 16.04.2024. The order was issued in connection with Case No. FTDC 1442/2016, initiated in 2016 to determine her citizenship status under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The petitioner sought to vacate this ex parte order through an application filed on 28.07.2025, which was rejected by the Tribunal on 13.08.2025. She then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Key Facts
- The Foreigners Tribunal proceeding was initiated in 2016 (Case No. FTDC 1442/2016)
- An initial ex parte order was passed on 28.09.2022
- The petitioner filed an application to vacate the 28.09.2022 order, which was granted on 06.12.2022 with a direction to file a written statement
- The petitioner filed her written statement only on 19.07.2023 - over 19 months after the direction
- The Tribunal passed a second ex parte order on 16.04.2024 due to the petitioner’s continued non-appearance
- The petitioner filed Petition No. 1/2025 on 28.07.2025 to vacate the 16.04.2024 order - more than one year after its issuance
- The Tribunal rejected the vacating application on 13.08.2025, citing undue delay and lack of bona fide intent
- The petitioner challenged the 13.08.2025 order before the Gauhati High Court via WP(C)/1205/2026 on 28.03.2026
Procedural History
- 2016: Foreigners Tribunal proceeding initiated (Case No. FTDC 1442/2016)
- 28.09.2022: First ex parte order passed
- 06.12.2022: First ex parte order vacated; Tribunal directed filing of written statement
- 19.07.2023: Written statement filed - 19 months after direction
- 16.04.2024: Second ex parte order passed due to non-appearance
- 28.07.2025: Application filed to vacate the 16.04.2024 order
- 13.08.2025: Tribunal rejected vacating application
- 28.03.2026: Writ petition filed before Gauhati High Court
- 13.05.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 incorrectly referenced the ex parte order as dated 20.04.2025, when the correct date was 16.04.2024. She argued that she had filed a written statement and deserved another opportunity to contest the proceeding. She claimed the delay was inadvertent and not malicious.
Respondents’ Position: The State, NRC, and Tribunal authorities submitted that the petitioner had been given two clear opportunities to contest the proceeding - first after the 2022 order and again after the 2024 order. The delay in filing the written statement (19 months) and the application to vacate (15 months) demonstrated deliberate neglect. The respondents emphasized that the Foreigners Tribunal Orders, 1964, mandate completion of proceedings within 60 days, and prolonged litigation undermines the statutory objective.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order dated 13.08.2025, vacation of the ex parte order dated 16.04.2024, and an opportunity to file a fresh written statement and contest the proceeding on merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a petitioner who repeatedly neglects to appear before a Foreigners Tribunal, despite being granted multiple opportunities, is entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution when seeking to vacate an ex parte order after an unreasonable delay.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Tribunal’s reference to an incorrect date (20.04.2025 instead of 16.04.2024) indicated procedural irregularity. He contended that the petitioner had filed a written statement and thus deserved a chance to present her case. He relied on the principle that courts should adopt a liberal approach in matters affecting citizenship, especially where the individual is vulnerable. He submitted that the delay was not intentional and that the petitioner was unaware of the consequences of non-appearance.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of deliberate non-cooperation. The Tribunal had already vacated one ex parte order and directed the filing of a written statement, which was delayed by over a year. The second ex parte order followed after the petitioner again failed to appear. The application to vacate the second order was filed 15 months after its issuance - far beyond any reasonable time. The respondents emphasized that equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 requires clean hands and that the petitioner’s conduct disqualified her from relief. They cited Order 3(14) of the Foreigners Tribunal Orders, 1964, which mandates expeditious disposal within 60 days.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging its traditional leniency in matters involving the vacation of ex parte orders. However, it immediately qualified this by emphasizing that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is inherently equitable and contingent upon the conduct of the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had been given two distinct opportunities to participate in the proceeding: first after the 2022 order and again after the 2024 order.
"The records would reveal that there was an earlier ex parte order dated 28.09.2022. It further reveals that the petitioner had filed an application for vacating the ex parte order which was accordingly done on 06.12.2022 with a direction to file the written statement. It however transpires that the written statement was not filed immediately and was done after more than one year i.e. 19.07.2023."
The Court found that the 19-month delay in filing the written statement after a clear direction was not merely negligent but indicative of indifference. The subsequent delay of 15 months in filing the application to vacate the second ex parte order further confirmed a pattern of inaction. The Court held that such prolonged inaction, despite clear procedural warnings, cannot be condoned under the guise of equity.
The Court also referenced Order 3(14) of the Foreigners Tribunal Orders, 1964, which requires proceedings to be completed within 60 days. It observed that the case had been pending since 2016 - nearly a decade - and that the petitioner’s conduct had directly contributed to this delay. The Court concluded that granting relief at this stage would not only reward neglect but also undermine the statutory framework designed for timely adjudication of citizenship claims.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Foreigners Tribunal’s order dated 13.08.2025 refusing to vacate the ex parte order dated 16.04.2024. The Court held that the petitioner’s repeated failure to appear and her unreasonable delays in filing the written statement and vacating application disqualified her from equitable relief under Article 226. The records were directed to be sent back to the Foreigners Tribunal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equitable Relief Requires Clean Conduct
- Practitioners must advise clients that repeated non-appearance before Foreigners Tribunals, even after being granted extensions, will likely bar relief under Article 226
- The burden shifts to the petitioner to demonstrate not just a reasonable explanation for delay, but also a consistent, bona fide effort to participate
- Mere assertion of ignorance or inadvertence is insufficient where the record shows a pattern of neglect
Statutory Timelines Are Not Suggestive But Mandatory
- The 60-day timeline under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners Tribunal Orders, 1964, is not a guideline but a statutory imperative
- Courts will not permit indefinite prolongation of proceedings due to petitioner’s inaction
- Delays exceeding six months in filing written statements or vacating applications will be viewed as fatal to claims for equitable intervention
Writ Petitions Are Not a Second Chance
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are not a substitute for procedural diligence before Tribunals
- Petitioners cannot use High Court jurisdiction to circumvent their own failures in lower forums
- The Gauhati HC has now set a clear precedent: equitable relief is denied where conduct defeats the purpose of the legal process
