Can restoration of the citizenship of a dead man act as a therapeutic balm for people facing similar challenges?.—.APART from justice between the parties to a case, the law as laid down by the courts has an important function. Court judgments can have a therapeutic effect. According to a psychological study by Wohl and Branscombe (2005), judicial decisions can provide a sense of collective healing and empowerment for the victims of historical injustices, by acknowledging their suffering and restoring their dignity..They can foster a positive social identity and a sense of belonging for marginalised groups, by affirming their rights and values. They can also inspire public confidence in the judiciary and its role as the protector of the rights and liberties of citizens..One such judgment is a recent verdict delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Supreme Court of India. Penned by Justice Amanullah, the judgment in Md. Rahim Ali versus Union of India quashed the reference made by the police against the petitioner, who was suspected of being a foreigner..It is a therapeutic and fair judgment because it upholds the principles of natural justice, human dignity and, above all, constitutional morality. It also exposes the flaws and injustices of the system that was used to harass and disenfranchise Rahim Ali..“It is a therapeutic and fair judgment because it upholds the principles of natural justice, human dignity and, above all, constitutional morality..The judgment is, thus, a silent acknowledgment of thousands of other such cases in Assam. Reports by human rights groups indicate that language, dress and dietary habits have been the de facto relevant criteria for the police to doubt the citizenship of several..Rahim Ali, the petitioner, claimed that his parents were Indian Citizens, and even their names appeared in the voter list of the year 1965 as well as in 1970. He also claimed citizenship by birth as he was born in Dolur village in Barpeta district of Assam and he was enrolled in the voter list of 1985..Also read: Rahim Ali: Restoring a dead man's citizenship.In 1997, after his marriage, he relocated to Nalabari, Assam. It was only in 2006, that his nationality was doubted and reference was made to the Foreigners Tribunal which was eventually decided against him ex parte in 2012..He approached the high court, but his case was dismissed by the court in 2015. It must be pointed out that the Foreigners Tribunal is set up under an executive Order and not a statute, which is not like any other tribunal in India..Rahim Ali challenged the validity of the reference and the notice before the Supreme Court, contending that they were arbitrary, illegal and violative of his fundamental rights..He argued that he had no opportunity to explain the discrepancies, which were minor and common, and that he had sufficient evidence to establish his citizenship. He also pointed out that the police had no material or information to suspect his citizenship, and that they had acted on their own whims and fancies..The Supreme Court, in July 2024, agreed with Rahim Ali and quashed the reference. The court held that the police had acted in a mechanical and casual manner, without applying their mind or following the due process of law..In simple words, the judgment holds that it is not permissible to simply walk up to a person and doubt his citizenship, thereby triggering the reverse burden of proof under a strict law..It said that it is for the authorities concerned to have in their knowledge or possession some material basis or information to suspect that a person is a foreigner and not an Indian. In many cases, it is reported that the police do not bother to visit the persons to make inquiries before making a reference..The court also acknowledged that discrepancies in spellings of the names are fairly common across the country and that it cannot be the basis to doubt the citizenship of any person..“The judgment holds that it is not permissible to simply walk up to a person and doubt his citizenship, thereby triggering the reverse burden of proof under a strict law..Such discrepancies are natural because the person entering the details does so as per his skills and understanding, and because of the fault of the data entry operator, the citizens cannot be made to suffer..The court further noted that discrepancies in names in government documents are not uncommon in India. For context, in Assam, the discrepancy in the name of 'Ram Kishan' and 'Ram Krishan' in a voter list can cost a person his citizenship..Also read: "Protect constitutional culture and morality, not notoriously vague 'culture'," Indira Jaising on Day 3 of Section 6A hearings.The court also held that there has to be some material against the citizen to doubt his citizenship, to which he can respond. A person cannot be expected to respond in thin air or a vacuum..The court concluded that the reference and the notice issued to Rahim Ali were devoid of any material or information. The court reasoned and emphasised a previous precedent which held that "fairness and reasonableness of trial as also maintenance of the individual dignity of the accused must be uppermost in the court's mind.".Significance of the judgment.The judgment in the Rahim Ali case is significant for several reasons. First, it reaffirms the basic principles of natural justice and fair trial, which are essential for the protection of the rights and liberties of the citizens. It reminds the authorities that they cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously and that they have to follow the due process of law— and that such due process cannot be defeated by triggering a reverse burden clause without any reasonable ground..Second, it exposes the flaws and injustices in Assam's system for identifying and detaining alleged foreigners. Thousands of residents have experienced what can be treated as the equivalent of "midnight knocks" from police, who then refer cases to the Foreigners Tribunal..The judgment also shows that the police often act without proper information. This confirms the ground reports regarding disproportionately targeting vulnerable and marginalised groups, particularly linguistic and religious minorities. The Foreigners Tribunal, which was intended to be an independent and impartial body, failed to protect the citizens..Third, it offers hope and dignity to those who are victims of the arbitrary Foreigners Act of 1946— a pre-independence, wartime legislation. It demonstrates that the judiciary can still be a beacon of hope, upholding constitutional values and the rule of law..It reveals that the courts understand and empathise with the plight of people treated as foreigners in their own land— on the basis of spelling mistakes and such minor discrepancies..Also read: "Free immigration and a welfare state cannot coexist," Vijay Hansaria on Day 2 of Section 6A hearings.Lastly, it highlights the courts' commitment to enforcing respect for human dignity and rights, especially for those denied basic amenities and at risk of losing their citizenship, the right to have rights..“The court further noted that discrepancies in names in government documents are not uncommon in India..At a time when the Northeast is farther from Delhi than Ukraine; and the painful voices from Assam are rarely heard in the corridors of power, the judgment in Rahim Ali is a clarion call that reverberates through the fragile system created by poorly and arbitrarily enforced colonial law— the Foreigners Act, 1946..Judicial decisions such as the one in Rahim Ali elicit a feeling of vindication. Court decisions are therapeutic and give hope to the people who face similar legal challenges and act as a guiding lamp for other courts.
