#Foreigners Act

Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the Devi Villa Homestay owner, ruling that offences alleged under the now-repealed Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 239 of the BNSS are untenable because the conduct occurred after the statute’s repeal. The decision underscores that once a law is repealed, no statutory duty to report arises, shielding individuals from retroactive criminal liability.

The Gauhati High Court affirmed that an individual labelled a foreigner must demonstrate Indian citizenship, and that irregularities in service of notice do not invalidate a Foreigners Tribunal’s ex-parte finding. This places the evidential burden on the accused and upholds procedural validity for similar citizenship disputes.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that citizenship claims under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 cannot be sustained by vague written statements or documents lacking contemporaneity and proper authentication. This sets a strict evidentiary standard for individuals before Foreigners Tribunals, reinforcing that mere possession of old papers is insufficient without verifiable, time-bound proof of presence in India before 1971.

Gauhati High Court quashed an ex parte order declaring a person a foreigner, ruling that procedural fairness requires actual notice and opportunity to be heard, even if service was technically effected. The judgment reinforces that Foreigners Tribunals cannot bypass natural justice principles under Article 226, impacting thousands facing similar proceedings in Assam.

Gauhati HC rules that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies solely on the proceedee to establish citizenship. The court set aside the declaration of the petitioner's family members as foreigners, emphasizing that each individual must be separately referenced and given an opportunity to prove their citizenship, reinforcing principles of natural justice.

Karnataka High Court rules that withdrawal of prosecution under the Foreigners Act, 1946, obligates immediate deportation of a foreign national upon submission of a sworn undertaking to leave India. The ruling clarifies that self-funded removal is a non-negotiable condition, reinforcing strict compliance with immigration laws for foreign detainees.

Gauhati High Court rules that citizenship claims under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act require a fully documented and pleaded chain of lineage. Disconnected voter lists or Gaonburah certificates alone are insufficient without linking documents, raising the burden of proof for claimants in Assam.

Delhi High Court ruled that foreign nationals granted bail in criminal trials cannot be detained in deportation centres under the Foreigners Order, 1948. The judgment reinforces that judicial orders for trial presence take precedence over executive deportation powers, setting a critical precedent for balancing immigration enforcement with due process rights.

Gauhati High Court rules that Indian citizenship under the Foreigners Act requires strict documentary proof of lineage to a pre-1971 ancestor. Maternal links, even with oral testimony, are insufficient unless corroborated by independent evidence of the mother’s own ancestry. The judgment reinforces the burden of proof on individuals claiming citizenship by descent, impacting NRC and Foreigners Tribunal proceedings in Assam.