UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Citizenship decisions must be ‘fair, reasoned’, says SC
Q1. Which one of the following is the principal statutory provision that placed the onus of proving that a person is not a foreigner upon that person himself, rather than upon the State, in proceedings before Foreigners' Tribunals?
- A. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946
- B. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946
- C. Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946
- D. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Q2. In the law now governing foreigners in India, the expression 'onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner shall lie upon such person' means which one of the following?
- A. The State must first establish a prima facie case of foreign origin, after which the burden shifts to the person concerned
- B. The burden of proving non-foreigner status rests on the person concerned, and this rule operates notwithstanding the general law of evidence contained in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- C. The burden lies on the person concerned only in criminal prosecutions for illegal entry, while in civil determinations the State bears the burden
- D. The burden lies equally on the State and the person concerned, with the Tribunal drawing an adverse inference against whichever side leads weaker evidence
Q3. The Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, under which quasi-judicial Tribunals determine whether a person is a foreigner, is administered by which one of the following?
- A. Ministry of Law and Justice, through the Department of Justice
- B. Ministry of External Affairs, through the Consular, Passport and Visa Division
- C. Ministry of Home Affairs, through the Foreigners Division
- D. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, through the Bureau of Immigration
Q4. With reference to the framework governing Foreigners' Tribunals in India, consider the following:
1. The Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 was issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
2. Although the Order extends to the whole of India, Foreigners' Tribunals have in fact been constituted only in Assam.
3. The Order was amended in May 2019 to lay down the modalities for Tribunals to decide appeals by persons dissatisfied with the outcome of claims and objections filed against the NRC.
4. An order of a Foreigners' Tribunal is appealable directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Which of the above is/are correctly identified?
- The Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 was issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
- Although the Order extends to the whole of India, Foreigners' Tribunals have in fact been constituted only in Assam.
- The Order was amended in May 2019 to lay down the modalities for Tribunals to decide appeals by persons dissatisfied with the outcome of claims and objections filed against the NRC.
- An order of a Foreigners' Tribunal is appealable directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the jurisdiction of the High Court.
- A. 1 and 4
- B. 2 and 3 only
- C. 1, 2 and 3
- D. 3 and 4
Q5. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was inserted to give effect to the Assam Accord of 1985. That Accord was concluded by the Union Government with which one of the following?
- A. The All Assam Students Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP)
- B. The All Assam Students Union (AASU) and the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP)
- C. The All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) and the Asam Sahitya Sabha
- D. The Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA)
Q6. Under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a person of Indian origin who entered Assam on or after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971 and is detected to be a foreigner enjoys the rights of a citizen except that he is denied the right to vote — for how many years?
- A. 5 years
- B. 10 years
- C. 12 years
- D. 15 years
Q7. With reference to the Supreme Court's July 2026 ruling on citizenship determination in Assam, consider the following:
1. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
2. Twenty-seven judgments of the Gauhati High Court, which had upheld declarations of the appellants as foreigners, were set aside.
3. The Supreme Court itself conclusively determined, on merits, that the appellants were Indian citizens.
4. The matters were remanded to the concerned Foreigners' Tribunals for fresh adjudication.
Which of the above is/are NOT correct?
- The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
- Twenty-seven judgments of the Gauhati High Court, which had upheld declarations of the appellants as foreigners, were set aside.
- The Supreme Court itself conclusively determined, on merits, that the appellants were Indian citizens.
- The matters were remanded to the concerned Foreigners' Tribunals for fresh adjudication.
- A. 1 and 2
- B. 2 and 4
- C. 1 and 3
- D. 3 only
Q8. The 27 judgments set aside by the Supreme Court in July 2026 for adopting a procedure that was not 'fair, lawful and reasonable' were rendered by which High Court, which exercises appellate/writ jurisdiction over orders of Foreigners' Tribunals in Assam?
- A. Calcutta High Court
- B. Meghalaya High Court
- C. Gauhati High Court
- D. Tripura High Court