The Court, while analysing the case, asked whether Section 9 (termination of citizenship) of the Citizenship Act empowers the executive “to pick a person at random, knock at his/her/their door, tell him/her/they/them ‘We suspect you of being a foreigner’.”
Having found material for such suspicion absent in this case, the Court observed that the State cannot proceed in such manner and neither can the top court countenance such approach.
“It needs no reiteration that a person charged or accused would generally not be able to prove to the negative, if he/she is not aware of the evidence/material against him/her which leads to the person being labelled suspect. Ipso facto just an allegation/accusation cannot lead to shifting of the burden to the accused, unless he/she is confronted with the allegation as also the material backing such allegation,” it added.
While it clarified that evidentiary value of the material at such stage would not be required to be gone into, the Court also said that mere allegation, as vague as to mechanically reproduce simply the words which mirror the provisions of law, cannot be permitted.
The Court asserted that the person suspected has to be made available of the information and material available against him.
“In the absence of the basic/primary material, it cannot be left to the untrammelled or arbitrary discretion of the authorities to initiate proceedings, which have life-altering and very serious consequences for the person, basis hearsay or bald and vague allegation(s),” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
