GUWAHATI: Citing the principle of “res judicata”, the Gauhati High Court has ruled that a person declared an Indian by a competent authority cannot be tried again on the same matter. Res judicata means that a matter adjudicated by a competent court may not be pursued further by the same parties.
The court’s order assumes significance as there have been several instances in Assam where persons declared Indian were sent notices again by the Foreigners’ Tribunals after suspecting their nationality. After hearing a batch of petitions involving nationality, a bench of Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Nani Tagia said the common theme that ran through the writ petitions was the applicability of the principle of res judicata.
The petitioners contended based on the decision in the Abdul Kuddus vs Union of India, (2019) case that the subsequent proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals, challenged in these petitions, are barred by res judicata.
“…The Special Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal submits that the law laid down by this court in Amina Khatoon vs Union of India (2018), in which it was held that res judicata is not applicable in the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal will continue to hold the field, as the said decision has not yet been overruled by the Supreme Court till date, neither has it been challenged before the Supreme Court so far,” the bench said.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that principle of res judicata is applicable relying on a number of decisions. It was submitted that the decision in the Amina Khatoon case was plainly contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court.
The court said it was held in the Amina Khatoon case that though the principle of res judicata is based on public policy, the same will stand subsumed under the public policy governing a sovereign nation while dealing with foreigners.
The court said: “…if it is found that the petitioner is the same person who was proceeded by the Foreigners Tribunal, the present proceeding shall immediately be concluded in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the earlier order.”