Shri. Adbul Rahim vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that while Section 7(2)(f)(ii) of the Foreigners Act, 2025, empowers the issuance of orders requiring a person to reside at a particular place, the adjudication of the petitioner's nationality by the FRRO during the writ proceedings was not conducted as contemplated by the Act or the Order. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed Indian citizenship and possessed various documents, but was apprehended based on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national, leading to the impugned order. Although the respondents contended that the onus was on the petitioner to prove his Indian nationality, the Court emphasized the need for a fair procedure, as highlighted in the case of Sabitri Dey, before deportation. The Court found that the impugned order directed the petitioner not to move out of the Foundation until his repatriation, which would only arise after a lawful adjudication of his nationality. The Court directed the concerned authorities to take requisite steps to determine the petitioner's nationality, affording him an adequate opportunity in accordance with law, and that repatriation/deportation should not be undertaken until this process is completed. The Court explicitly stated that it would not adjudicate the petitioner's nationality for the first time in the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioners, identified as Indian citizens, challenged a Movement Restriction Order dated March 5, 2026, issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bengaluru. The order directed the first petitioner to be referred to Utile Foundation, Kothanur, Bengaluru, under Section 7(2)(f) of the Foreigners Act, 2025, and Paragraph 8 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025. The first petitioner was apprehended by police as part of a drive to identify illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Despite asserting Indian citizenship and possessing various identity documents, the FRRO issued the order, identifying him as 'Md.Rahim Howladar, s/o Md.Motaleb Howladar.' The petitioner had a prior conviction in 2012 for being a Bangladeshi national, against which an appeal was pending. A previous Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of, granting liberty to challenge the impugned order. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to prove his Indian nationality and that his birth certificate was not genuine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Movement Restriction Order dated March 5, 2026, passed by the FRRO under Section 7(2)(f) of the Foreigners Act, 2025, is without authority of law, considering the petitioner claims to be an Indian citizen and possesses multiple Indian identity documents? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the FRRO, in passing the impugned order, failed to afford a fair procedure and an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his Indian nationality before concluding he was a foreign national? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper adjudication of his nationality and that the FRRO's subsequent inquiry during the writ proceedings was not in accordance with the law. They argued that the order assumed he was a foreign national despite his claims and documents. They relied on the principle of fair procedure, citing the case of Sabitri Dey. Respondents' arguments: The respondents asserted that the onus was on the petitioner to prove his Indian nationality, citing Sabitri Dey and Obinna Jeremiah Okafor. They also argued that Section 7(2)(f)(ii) of the Foreigners Act, 2025, empowers the issuance of orders requiring a person to reside at a particular place, thus validating the impugned order. They questioned the genuineness of the petitioner's birth certificate.