Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India 2025 case gained attention because it raised an important question about the legal value of inclusion in the draft NRC when weighed against a binding declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal. It drew attention due to the ongoing debates in Assam over citizenship, NRC and the rights of individuals declared as foreigners. The ruling of the Supreme Court explained that administrative inclusion in the NRC cannot override a judicial finding by a tribunal under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India Introduction

Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India 2025 is a landmark judgment which revolves around an important question regarding the legal status of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam and their simultaneous inclusion in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC). The appellant, Rofiqul Hoque, challenged a 2017 declaration by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, which held him to be a foreigner who had entered India illegally after 25th March 1971. Despite being included in the 2018 draft NRC, the appellant’s citizenship claim was rejected by the Tribunal and later upheld by the Gauhati High Court. This dismissal prompted an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Download Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India PDF

The Rofiqul Hoque v Union of India case at hand centres around a declaration made by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, holding the appellant to be a foreigner who had illegally entered India after 25th March, 1971. This declaration was upheld by the Gauhati High Court and is challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Appellant claimed Indian citizenship based on ancestral records and inclusion in the draft NRC, while the State contests the authenticity and consistency of his evidence under the burden of proof imposed by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The following are the facts of Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India -

Reference to Tribunal

The Appellant was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, through an order dated 4th March, 2017. This declaration was based on a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar, who alleged that the appellant had entered India illegally after 25th March 1971 and was residing unlawfully in Assam.

Tribunal Proceedings

The Tribunal issued a notice to the appellant and asked him to show cause why he should not be declared a foreigner. In response, the appellant filed a written statement on 15th June 2016 and asserted his Indian citizenship.

Claim of Citizenship

The appellant claimed to be the son of Md. Majut Ali and Sopia Bibi, residents of Daobhangi village under Gauripur Police Station, District Dhubri. He identified his grandfather as Joynal Abdin Seikh and grandmother as Moriyom Bibi. He stated he was born in 1996 and thus qualified as a citizen of India.

Evidence Submitted

To support his claim, the appellant submitted:

• A duplicate school leaving certificate (Ext-1), dated 3rd May 2014
• Voter list extracts from:
  • 1966 (Ext-2) – name of his grandfather
  • 1970 (Ext-3) – names of grandfather and grandmother
  • 1993 (Ext-4) – names of his father and uncle
  • 2010 (Ext-5) and 2016 (Ext-6) – names of his parents

Findings of the Tribunal

The Tribunal noted the discrepancies in the documentary evidence. It observed inconsistencies in the names, ages and places of residence across the voter lists. Specifically, it questioned the identity of Joynal Abdin, pointing out the different villages (Daobhangi and Kekurchar) mentioned in various documents. It concluded that the appellant had not adequately proven his Indian citizenship.

Review of the High Court

The Guwahati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and affirmed the order of the Tribunal. The Court highlighted several issues:

• The school certificate was a duplicate and not corroborated by the headmaster.
• The voter lists contained age inconsistencies and residential mismatches.
• Names of family members (like the appellant’s mother) were missing in essential documents.

Detention and Appeal

Following the order of the High Court dated 20th November 2017, the appellant was detained. Nearly two years later, he approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India 2025 Legal Issues

The following issues were addressed in Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India 2025 - 

• The Supreme Court examined whether the inclusion of an individual's name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) can override or nullify a prior declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal declaring the person a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• The Court in Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India analysed whether a declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal takes precedence over administrative actions like NRC inclusion with regard to determining citizenship status.
• Lastly, the Court also decided whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof to establish Indian citizenship as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

On 19th May, 2025, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra in Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India held that the mere inclusion of a person's name in the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) cannot override or nullify a prior declaration made by a Foreigners Tribunal that the person is a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, upheld the judgment of the Gauhati High Court which had refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s 2017 order declaring the appellant a foreigner, even though his name appeared in the 2018 draft NRC.

The main issue in Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant’s inclusion in the NRC could invalidate the Tribunal’s earlier declaration. The Court referred to the precedent set in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019) and held that a person once declared a foreigner by a Tribunal continues to be irrespective of NRC inclusion. The judgment explained that the Tribunal’s declaration carries legal weight and cannot be displaced by administrative entries like the NRC, especially when such entries were made after the declaration.

Further, the Court in Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India noted that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, as he could not provide consistent and reliable documentary evidence, such as electoral rolls or educational certificates, to prove his Indian citizenship.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court in Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the declaration of the Tribunal remains valid and binding, and the name of the Appellant in the draft NRC does not confer legal citizenship status.

Conclusion

In Rofiqul Hoque vs Union of India 2025 the Supreme Court on Monday i.e., 19th May, 2025 ruled that a Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration of a person as a foreigner remains valid and cannot be nullified by their inclusion in the draft NRC. Consequently, the appellant’s name in the draft NRC does not confer citizenship. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the tribunal’s decision.