1. Framing the Intervention 26 “the main grounds on which he is alleged to be a foreigner,” and to offer “a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and producing evidence in support of his case.” After hearing the person and considering the evidence, the FT would then “submit its opinion” to the government. Importantly, the Order stated that the FT may regulate its own procedure, and was not bound to observe the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Being an executive order, the qualifications of FT members could be altered without legislative sanction. Moreover, the Foreigners Act, under Section 9, placed the burden of proof on the individual, reversing the ordinary presumption of citizenship. In effect, this gave the FT broad procedural latitude without binding legal standards—creating a quasi-judicial forum that exercised significant adjudicatory power, but without the institutional safeguards or accountability mechanisms of a court. Concerns about the discriminatory use of these powers, particularly against minorities, led to the enactment of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act), which sought to provide stronger procedural protections. Applicable only in Assam, the IMDT Act restored the burden of proof—requiring the complainant to establish a prima facie case—and permitted only residents within a 3-kilometre radius to lodge complaints. Complaints had to be vetted by a screening committee before reaching the Tribunal. In design, the IMDT Act attempted to prevent arbitrary accusations and to create a more rigorous basis for initiating citizenship challenges. However, in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India40 (“Sonowal I”), the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that its safeguards unduly favoured suspected “illegal migrants,” impeding national security and violating the spirit of the Assam Accord. The Court described migration as an “unique type of bloodless aggression”41 and endorsed the State’s interest in identifying and removing illegal migrants over the rights of those accused. The effect of this decision was to transfer the task of citizenship determination to the FTs under the Foreigners Act, reinstating the reversed burden of proof and dissolving the procedural safeguards the IMDT had introduced. In Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India42 (“Sonowal II”), the Court reaffirmed this orientation.43 40 (2005) 5 SCC 665. ibid [56]. (2007) 1 SCC 174. 43 ibid [62]. 41 42