5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court 5.3.2 Undermining Res Judicata The Supreme Court, in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India,539 and the Gauhati High Court in Justice Kotiswar Singh’s judgment of Sital Mandal v. Union of India540 have firmly established that res judicata applies to the FT proceedings, barring repetitive litigation on the same issues involving the same individual. These rulings make clear that once an FT has adjudicated a person’s citizenship status, any subsequent proceeding seeking to re-determine that status should be barred by res judicata. The FT must treat res judicata as a preliminary issue, requiring the defendant in any subsequent case to demonstrate that they are the same individual previously declared an Indian. Despite this clear mandate, the Gauhati High Court has repeatedly circumvented the principle in recent cases by rejecting res judicata pleas on tenuous grounds. Instead of upholding prior FT findings, the Court has invalidated favourable earlier decisions by branding them “unreasoned” or insufficiently detailed, and remanding cases to the FTs for rehearing. This approach undermines res judicata’s core purpose: to prevent repetitive litigation, protect individuals from endless legal jeopardy, and preserve judicial finality. In Rafikul Islam (2023),541 the defendant was first declared an Indian by the FT in 2014 (F.T. Case No. 102/2014). However, in a subsequent proceeding in 2019 (F.T. Case No. 05/2019), the FT reversed its earlier finding and declared him a foreigner. When Islam invoked res judicata to challenge this second decision, the High Court refused to apply the doctrine. Rather than affirming the finality of the earlier ruling, the Court questioned the quality of the reasoning in the first FT opinion, holding that “an unreasoned order is unacceptable in law.” It reached this conclusion without reproducing or engaging with the substantive findings or materials from the first FT decision, nor did it undertake any preliminary inquiry into whether the defendant was, in fact, the same individual. The Court remanded the matter to the FT “in the interest of justice,” effectively reopening a settled issue in clear disregard of its own precedent. A similar pattern emerged in Amir Ali (2023),542 where the petitioner was declared Indian by the FT in 2016. Despite this, Ali received further notices and was subjected to multiple additional proceedings on the same question of citizenship. Ali rightly invoked res judicata, arguing that his prior adjudication 164 barred further litigation. The High Court dismissed this plea, once again questioning the adequacy of the FT’s initial reasoning and remanding the case for reconsideration. This enabled the State to introduce fresh evidence, forcing Ali to endure repeated proceedings on a matter already resolved. Instead of condemning the repetitive and burdensome nature of these proceedings, the Court compounded the problem by ordering yet another appearance before the FT, disregarding the very finality res judicata is designed to protect. 539 2019 (6) SCC 604 [24]. WP(C) 2099/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 28 April 2022). Rafikul Islam v. Union of India WP(C) 251/2023 (Gauhati High Court, 3 March 2023). 542 Md. Amir Ali @ Amir Uddin v. Union of India WP(C) 1248/2023 (Gauhati High Court, 27 March 2023). 540 541