Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 30 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010282102025
2026:GAU-AS:1265-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/363/2026
RABIA KHATUN ALIAS MUSSTT RABIYA KHATUN
W/O- NURUL HOQUE, RESIDENT OF VILL.- BARJHAR BAGISHA, P.O.
BHAKATPARA, P.S. KALAIGAON, DIST. UDALGURI (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN-
784514.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW
DELHI-110001.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
5:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC)
Page No.# 2/14
ASSAM
FIRST FLOOR
ACHYUT PLAZA
G.S. ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005.
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DARRANG
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784125.
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
DARRANG
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784125
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J A AHMED, MR. K M HASSAN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 30.01.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. J.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.6.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Rabia Khatun @ Musstt. Rabiya Khatun, has Page No.# 3/14 assailed the opinion dated 29.06.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Mangaldai, Darrang, in Case No. F.T. 639/07, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner/ illegal migrant, who had entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3) On service of notice, the petitioner had appeared and filed her written statement before the learned Tribunal. Reiterating the statements made in her written statement, the petitioner had filed her evidence-on-affidavit, wherein she had stated that the birth place of her, Akkas Ali, her projected father and Moizuddin, her projected grandfather is village- Barjhar Bagisha. The name of her projected father, Akkas Ali, son of Late Moizuddin appeared in the voter list of 1965 and 1971 and also in the Legacy Data for 1966 and 1971. The name of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1985 1991, 1997, 2005 and 2018 along with her husband and she has been casting her vote since 1985. She had also stated that her had four brothers and one sister, namely, Oisuddin Ali, Munser Ali, Ahed Ali, Kamal Ali and Ahitan Bewa. She has two brothers and two sisters, namely, Kalu Gaji, Julhas Ali, Amiran Nesa and Asma Khatun, who are all residing in village- Barjhar Bagisha. She had further stated that the name of her projected grandfather is written as Moizuddin in the voter list of 1966 and as Mazudi in voter list of 1971 and that Moizuddin and Mazudi are same and one person and the name of her husband appeared in various voters lists as Nurul Hoque Hoque, Nurul Ali, Nurul Sardar, Nurul Hoque and she had stated that those hereinbefore names are of same and one person and that a separate case against him is pending before the Foreigners Tribunal, being F.T. 644/07. She has, thus, stated that the said documents prove that the petitioner is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. In support of her defence, the petitioner had exhibited the following documents, viz., Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.1); certified Page No.# 4/14 copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.2); certified copy of voter list of 1971 (Ext.3); photocopy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.5); affidavit of the petitioner regarding name discrepancy (Ext.6); Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) (Ext.7 &
8). It may be stated that no document was exhibited as Ext.4. The petitioner, as DW-1, was cross-examined and discharged.
4) Along with the said evidence-on- affidavit, the petitioner had also annexed photocopies of 9 (nine) following documents; viz., print-out of Legacy Data Code [Annexure-1(a) and 2]; panchayat certificate (Annexure-1); voter list of 1985 (Annexure-3); voter list of Abhaypukhuri Gaon Panchayat of 1991 (Annexure-4); voter list of 1997 (Annexure-5); voter list of 2005 (Annexuure-6); voter list of 2018 (Annexure-7); voter list of 1975 (Annexure-8); voter list of 2015 (Annexure-9).
5) The petitioner had also examined Sri Bireswar Sahary, son of Late Gobinda Baro, Gaonburah as DW-2, who had admitted issuance of residential certificate (Ext.1). DW-2 had stated that he knows the petitioner for last 15 years and also knows her father. He knows the family since 2003. He had stated that the counterfoil of the residential certificate book is not maintained by the Gaonburah. In his cross-examination, DW-2 had denied that he does not know the petitioner and her father, Akkesh Ali.
6) The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence, found discrepancy in the names of the projected father and grandfather of the petitioner because from the contents of Ext.2 and Ext.3, the certified copy of the voter list of 1965 and 1971, the voter Akas Ali @ Akas is the son of Maijuddin @ Majudi, but as per contents of Ext.1, Rabiya Khatun is the daughter of Akesh Ali and that on the appearance of the petitioner before the Tribunal on 08.05.2018, she had given information through her advocate Page No.# 5/14 that the petitioner is the daughter of Mozibor. It was thus, held that the petitioner had failed to establish that Mozibor and Maijudin @ Majudi are same and one person. Accordingly, it was held that it can be presumed that the petitioner, to suit her purpose, had picked up the voter lists of 1965 and 1971 and claimed those persons to be her father and grandfather and thus, it was held that the voter lists Ext.1 and 2, cannot be acted upon as trustworthy. By referring to the evidence of DW-2, it was observed that DW-2 knows about the existence of the petitioner and her family since 2003 and does not know her grandparents and thus, his evidence is of no help to the petitioner to prove existence of her parents from the cut-off date of 25.03.1971. In respect of the documents filed as Annexure nos. 1, 1(a), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, it was held that the photocopies of documents do not have any evidentiary value unless the originals are produced and in the absence of the originals, marking of photocopies of documents is not admissible in evidence. Thus, it was held that the said documents do not help the petitioner to prove her case that she is not a foreigner. It was further held that Ext.5 was a photocopy, Ext.6 was an affidavit, Ext.7 and Ext.8 were EPICs, and post being 1971 documents they were of no help to the petitioner to prove that she is a genuine Indian citizen. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, as held in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 665 , to prove that she was a citizen of India by birth and failed to establish that she was born and brought up by genuine Indian parents. Resultantly, the petitioner was held to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
7) On the query of the Court about the explanation, if any, by the petitioner for assailing the impugned opinion after about 7 1/2 years, the learned Page No.# 6/14 counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not furnished with any ground for suspecting her to be a foreigner, for which he has referred to the notice of the learned Tribunal. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed grave illegality in declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner by discarding the pleadings and evidence, though it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to ensure that no genuine Indian citizen should be declared to be a foreigner. To explain the delay, it was submitted that due to severe financial difficulties, the petitioner could not arrange for funds to approach this Court to assail the impugned opinion.
8) The present writ petition to assail the impugned opinion dated 29.06.2018, was filed on 16.12.2025, i.e. after a delay of about 7 years, 5 months, 17 days i.e. 2,727 days. Thus, the only explanation given by the petitioner is that there was severe financial difficulty in approaching this Court.
9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that the Court Fees for filing a writ petition was a negligible amount of Rs.60.00 (Rupees sixty only) and that the petitioner could have availed legal aid, if she satisfied the conditions therefore. It was submitted that as the authorities have stepped up action against declared foreigners/ illegal migrants, the petitioner has falsely projected about her financial constraints to somehow garner sympathy of the Court to accept a belated challenge to the impugned opinion. It was further submitted that except for oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence to link the petitioner to her projected parents and grandparents. It was also submitted that all relevant facts were neither pleaded nor proved by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. Hence, he has prayed for dismissing the writ petition at this stage.
10) In this case, the opinion was rendered on 29.06.2018 and the Page No.# 7/14 petitioner was all throughout represented by her learned counsel. In the absence of any allegations against her learned counsel that she was not informed about the impugned opinion, there is no doubt that the petitioner was aware of the learned Tribunal's adverse opinion against her on 29.06.2018, the date when the said opinion was pronounced. Thus, the petitioner had allowed the opinion dated 29.06.2018, to remain un-assailed till this writ petition was filed on 16.12.2025.
11) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that for ends of natural justice, this writ petition should be admitted for hearing. In this regard, it may be relevant to mention that this Court, in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India, (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, had held to the effect that the plea of compliance of the 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. Similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813.
12) The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In paragraph 63, the Supreme Court of India had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Page No.# 8/14 Constitution of India. In paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts.
13) In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme(SC) 1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court, when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion.
14) A very vague statement by the petitioner that she has severe financial difficulties, cannot be accepted as a good, cogent and acceptable explanation to entertain this writ petition when cause of action to file this writ petition arose on 29.06.2018, because the petitioner was aware and conscious of the said opinion against her. Therefore, the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent in assailing the impugned order. The default in appearing and to take steps in the proceeding is willful and deliberate, with full knowledge of the consequences that may follow.
15) On examining the pleadings and evidence available on record, it is seen that as per the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner as DW-1, she has exhibited the original and/or certified copies of the following documents:-
Page No.# 9/14 i. Gaonburah's certificate dated 17.03.2018 (Ext.1). A rough English translation of its contents is to the effect that Rabiya Khatun, daughter of Akesh Ali, resident of village- Barjhar Bagisha is a resident of Gaonburah's jurisdiction.
ii. Certified copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.2), containing a single entry of voter as Akas Ali, son of Maijuddin, aged 30 years.
iii. Certified copy of voter list of 1971 (Ext.3), containing a single entry of voter as Akas, son of Majudi, aged 35 years.
iv. Certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.5). As per the statement made in the evidence-on-affidavit, it contains the name of voters as Rabia, wife of Nurul. However, the copy which is annexed to this writ petition is a photocopy of certified copy obtained on 14.12.2021, i.e. after the opinion was passed. Therefore, what was there in the document exhibited is not known. No reason is assigned in this writ petition for not annexing the copy of the exhibited document.
v. Affidavit sworn on 07.05.2018, containing petitioner's self declaration that her husband's actual name is Nurul Hoque Hoque and that Nurul Hoque Hoque and Nurul Ali are both same and one person (Ext.6).
vi. EPIC of the petitioner (Ext.7).
vii. EPIC of Akkas Ali (Ext.8). However, photocopy of the said exhibited
document has not been annexed to the writ petition and no reason has been stated why the copy of the document was withheld.
16) Apart from the above, the petitioner has annexed the following documents as annexures to her evidence-on-affidavit, instead of producing and exhibiting the original and/or certified copy thereof.
Page No.# 10/14 i. Annexure-1: Linkage certificate dated 10.07.2015, issued by Circle Officer, Kalaigaon Revenue Circle, stating that Rabia Khatun is the daughter of Akkas Ali and Jahiran Nessa. However, the said document contains a printed disclaimer that the said certificate shall be acceptable only as a supporting document for establishing linkage with parent(s) and would be valid only if accompanied by Legacy Data or any other documents issued for the person with whom linkage is claimed for inclusion in updated NRC.
ii. Annexure-1(a): Legacy Data, purportedly of Akkas Ali, son of Maijuddin, purportedly as per voter list of 1965. This document is not annexed to the writ petition for reasons not disclosed in the writ petition. Thus, the correctness of the statement cannot be commented upon.
iii. Annexure-2: Legacy data purportedly of Akas, son of Majudi, purportedly as per voter list of 1971. This document is not annexed to the writ petition for reasons not disclosed in the writ petition. Thus, the correctness of the statement cannot be commented upon.
iv. Annexure-3: Photocopy of voter list of 1985, purportedly disclosing name of voters as (1) Nurul, aged 28 years, son of Joyan; and (2) Ariwa, age- 26 years, wife of Nurul.
v. Annexure-4: Photocopy of voter list of 1991, purportedly disclosing name of voter as Sabia, wife of Nurul, as appears from the statement made in the evidence-on-affidavit. However, the document is not annexed to the writ petition without disclosing any reason. Therefore, the veracity of the entry cannot be commented upon.
Page No.# 11/14 vi. Annexure-6: Photocopy of voter list of 2005, purportedly disclosing name of voters as (1) Nurul Hoque, aged 42 years, son of Hasen Ali; and (2) Rabia Khatun, aged (illegible), wife of Nurul Ali. vii. Annexure-7: Photocopy of voter list of 2018, purportedly disclosing name of voters as (1) Nurul Hoque Hoque, aged 53 years, son of Hasen Ali; and (2) Rabia Khatun, aged 43 years, wife of Nurul Ali.
17) No material has been disclosed either in the evidence-on- affidavit of the petitioner as DW-1, or in this writ petition to explain, why photocopies of few documents were annexed to the evidence-on-affidavit and/or why the originals and/or certified copies could not be exhibited. The writ petition also does not disclose any order passed by the learned Tribunal, denying reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove the originals and/or certified copies of those documents. There is also no statement in the writ petition that the petitioner had made a prayer before the learned Tribunal to call for witnesses, which was refused. Thus, the Court has to concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal that photocopies of documents do not help the petitioner in any manner.
18) Upon examining the exhibited documents and evidence-on- affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that in paragraph 18 of her evidence- on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that her father is still living and is present before the learned Tribunal to give evidence. However, from the impugned opinion, it does not appear that the petitioner had examined her projected father. The petitioner has not annexed copy of any order passed by the learned Tribunal, refusing to examine the projected father of the petitioner. Therefore, while the petitioner has not tendered the best evidence by examining the petitioner's projected father, secondary evidence by way of Gaonburah's Page No.# 12/14 certificate (Ext.1) does not inspire confidence of the Court as to the correctness of the contents of the said Ext.1 because there is no apparent reason for the petitioner not to examine her projected father. Thus, the voter list of 1965 and 1971 i.e. Ext.2 and Ext.3 do not help the petitioner to prove her citizenship status, having born out of Indian parents.
19) In so far as the image copy of NRC is concerned, though the photocopy of the said document is not annexed to this writ petition, but it is common knowledge that the NRC copies are a computer generated and/or image id print-out. In respect of the said document, this Court in the case of Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (2) GLT 45 , while approving the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanbhasa Seikh v. Union of India & Ors., 1970 ALR 206, has held that NRC extract produced to prove domicile in India is inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, in the case of Ahitan Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 6443/2017, decided on 19.12.2017, has held that NRC legacy data, besides being inadmissible evidence, is a computer generated statement and thus. Sub- Section (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be applicable. In the case of Basiron Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 692 , referring to the certificate by Gaonburah, wherein it was stated that Basiron Nessa is the daughter of Late Abdul Barek and Rabia Khatun, this Court had held, that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony. Thus, the Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.1) does not help the petitioner in any manner. It may further be mentioned that though the Gaonburah was examined as DW-2, neither he nor DW-1 had exhibited and proved the signature of the Gaonburah.
20) In this case, the name of the petitioner does not appear with her projected parents. Moreover, the names of her projected parents do not appear Page No.# 13/14 together in any exhibited voters list and moreover, the names of her projected parents also do not appear with her projected grandparents. Thus, apart from oral evidence alone, there is no documentary evidence to link the petitioner with her projected parents.
21) The remaining documents like EPIC (Ext.7 and Ext.8) are not proof of citizenship, as the said documents were obtained after the cut-off date of 25.03.1971. EPIC was issued in the year 2013, whereas, the police enquiry against the petitioner was instituted in the year 2007, vide Ref. Case No. 87/2007, which is evident from the contents of paragraph 1 of the impugned opinion.
22) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was not served with grounds for suspecting the petitioner as a foreigner. In this regard, it is seen that this point has been raised for the first time in this writ petition. The petitioner had contested the proceeding without raising this plea. Moreover, the documents of reference were available in the Tribunal's record and the petitioner did not refer to it in her written statement or evidence-on-affidavit. Thus, the petitioner could not show that she had suffered any prejudice on that count. Thus, this point appears to be an after-thought and has been raised for the first time in this writ petition.
23) Thus, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed on the ground of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of 7 years, 5 months, 17 days i.e. 2,727 days in assailing the impugned opinion. Even on merit, as discussed hereinbefore, no case is made out for admission of this writ petition as the impugned opinion is not shown to be suffering from any perversity. Moreover, as this Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction, and therefore, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate prima Page No.# 14/14 facie existence of any perversity in the impugned opinion, no case is made out for any interference against the impugned opinion.
24) Hence, this writ petition is dismissed at the "motion" stage, on merit and on the ground of delay and laches, which has not been properly explained.
25) There shall be no order as to cost. 26) The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and
NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of the record of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1 st), Darrang, Mangaldai for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant