1. Framing the Intervention 28 There are three parallel mechanisms by which a case may be referred to the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs): 1. Enquiry Report by the Assam Border Police: Under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, if the Enquiry Officer from the Assam Border Police Organisation suspects a person to be a foreigner, an enquiry report is forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (Border), who then submits it to the Tribunal. 2. Classification as a Doubtful Voter (D-Voter): The Election Commission of India may classify an individual as a “D-voter” (Doubtful Voter) based on reports from a Local Verification Officer and the Electoral Registration Officer. This classification is based on an enquiry of the Local Verification Officer, who acts as the enquiring authority for this process. This classification is subsequently forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (Border), who then issues a reference to the Tribunal. 3. Transfer of Cases from the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983: Cases previously registered under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665, are also transferred to the FTs. Under Notification 1/1/64-(I)-F.III, the Superintendents of Police (Border) and the Deputy Commissioners within their jurisdictions are empowered to carry out functions of the Central Government under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Consequently, the Assam Border Police Organisation serves as the “Competent Authority” responsible for conducting enquiries and forwarding references to the FTs. The jurisprudence of the Gauhati High Court has been central in operationalising and deepening this legal structure. In Bahaluddin Sheikh v. Union of India,44 the High Court excluded ordinary civil court jurisdiction over citizenship determination, vesting exclusive authority in the FTs. The effect has been to elevate the importance of FTs— even though they are not courts and lack basic judicial safeguards. The High Court has also narrowed the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, intervening only in limited procedural contexts and avoiding scrutiny of substantive questions. It has endorsed rigid evidentiary standards, dismissed oral testimony even from immediate kin, and deferred to executive and tribunal discretion. The result has been the consolidation of a jurisprudence that privileges form over substance and allows procedural irregularities to ossify into systemic norms. Since then, both the Supreme Court and the High Court have attempted to introduce incremental reforms—some aimed at clarifying evidentiary burdens, others at reinforcing procedural fairness. This report engages with these reforms in detail. Perhaps, the optimistic view was that court-led reform would, over time, bring justice to the FT system and safeguard the constitutional and ethical gravity of citizenship. This report contends, however, that these reforms have neither succeeded nor are likely to succeed. Structural deficiencies—unbound discretion, reversed burdens, lack of binding procedures, and judicial inconsistency—remain deeply entrenched. They demand not patchwork correction but a fundamental rethinking of the legal and institutional framework. 44 2013 SCC OnLine Gau 108.