Gauhati High Court
Musstt. Rupbanu @ Rupbanu Khatun vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 13 May, 2026
Author: Sk Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010047592026
2026:GAU-AS:6697-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1637/2026
MUSSTT. RUPBANU @ RUPBANU KHATUN
WIFE OF RUSMAT ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORBORI, POLICE
STATION- LAHARIGHAT, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782127
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEWDELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781006
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
STADIUM ROAD
MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105
4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION
Page No.# 2/7
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110001
5:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
MORIGAON
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
STADIUM ROAD
MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105
6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF LAHARIGHAT POLICE STATION
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH,
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 13.05.2026 (SK Medhi, J)
1. Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel, Home Department; Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC, Union of India; Mr. N. Kalita learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing counsel, ECI and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam.
2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against an order dated 14-11-2017, passed by the learned Page No.# 3/7 Foreigners' Tribunal (2nd), Morigaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. F.T. (D)/10/2016 arising out of police reference D/N Case No. 1747 dated 15.12.1997 and E.R.O. reference No. 83/111/45 dated 17.10.1997, whereby the opinion has been rendered against the petitioner declaring her to be a foreigner post 25-3-1971.
3. The primary grounds of challenge is that the order passed is an ex- parte one.
4. Ms. Ghosh, the learned Legal Aid counsel has submitted that the proceeding was contested by filing written statement on 22-3-2017, where after due to economic hardships, the same could not be contested leading to passing of the impugned opinion dated 14-11-2017.
5. On the aspect of the delay in approaching this Court, the learned Legal Aid counsel has submitted that as a consequence of the said opinion dated 14-11-2017, the petitioner was taken into custody in the year 2019. However, in terms of certain directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in connection with detainees, pursuant to orders passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal who were in custody for more than 2(two) years and coupled with the fact of the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, such detainees were directed to be released who had spent 2(two) or more years. The petitioner was accordingly released on 05-05-2021. However, she was again taken into custody on 05-05-2025 and thereafter, the present challenge has been made by way of this writ petition which has been filed on 17-3-2026. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a poor lady and one chance may be afforded to her.
Page No.# 4/7
6. Per contra, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel, Home Department has submitted that admittedly the petitioner had received notice and had contested the proceedings by filing written statement. He has submitted that the impugned order itself would state that the petitioner had neglected to appear on her own volition in spite of the fact that a number of adjournments were granted to her whereafter there was no appearance. He has also submitted that though the petitioner was taken into detention in the year 2019, there was no challenge to the order and in the meantime because of certain directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this High Court, she was released on 05-05-2021. He has highlighted that in spite of such release, there was no endeavour made by the petitioner to take any step qua the impugned order dated 14-11- 2017 and only after she was detained again on 05-05-2025 and certain steps for deportation had started, the instant writ petition has been filed. He has submitted that for the long period of more than 4(four) years, no steps, worth its name were taken by the petitioner to make any challenge to the order which is of the year 2017.
7. The learned Standing counsel has submitted that a proceeding of the present nature cannot be an endless one and the rights of a proceedee has to be examined vis-a-vis the interest of the country. In this connection, he has relied upon the observations made by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ayub Ali & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2016 (1) GLT 273 and the following observations have been pressed into service.
Paragraph 14 (16) -
"Principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula. It Page No.# 5/7 is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has been in public domain in the State of Assam. Process of determination of question of citizenship cannot be a one-way traffic, leaning only in favour of a person whose citizenship is doubted. Interest of the State is also of paramount importance in that unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and should be zealously guarded. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own peril. Right to a fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners. The petitioners had known about the allegations against them that they are foreigners entering India with any valid documents, at least from 2007, even ignoring the earlier part under the IMDT Act from 1997. The petitioners, all these years, apparently, did not take any step to defend their rights in the Court proceedings. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any further opportunity to the petitioners as any such course of action, according to the perception to the Court, would be self-defeating."
8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined.
9. It transpires that the initial proceeding was under the IMDT which was initiated in the year 1997 and the impugned opinion could be rendered after a gap of more than 2(two) decades. An examination of the impugned opinion dated 14-11-2017 would show that after filing of the written statement on 22-03-2017, adjournments were sought for on behalf of the petitioner on the next 4(four) dates namely 20-05-2017, 28-06-2017, 19- Page No.# 6/7 07-2017 and 05-10-2017. However, on the next date i.e. 27-10-2017, the petitioner was absent without steps. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed on 14-11-2017 ex-parte against the petitioner. It also transpires that the petitioner was taken into detention in the year 2019 and was released on 05-05-2021 and in spite of such release, no steps were taken for filing any petition for vacating the ex-parte order or approaching the appropriate forum. It is only after the detention of the petitioner on 05-05-2025 that this petition has been filed.
10. We have taken into consideration the submissions advanced by Mr. J. Payeng, that the present writ petition has been filed when certain process of deportation has started. We have checked from the records that the present petition has been filed on 17-03-2026 i.e. after a period of almost about 9(nine) years from the date of the order. It is also not the case that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order dated 14-11-2017.
11. With the aspect regarding the individual rights of a proceedee vis-a- vis the interest of the State, we are in full agreement with the observations made by the co-ordinate Bench this Court in the case of Ayub Ali (supra) which have been extracted above.
12. We are of the opinion that the jurisdiction exercised by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable in nature and the conduct of the party approaching this Court is of paramount importance.
13. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the equitable relief and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
Page No.# 7/7
14. Records to sent back forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant