Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010258772025
2026:GAU-AS:3621-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7037/2025
AYNA KHATUN ALIAS ANOWARA KHATUN
W/O- SADEK ALI, D/O-TARA MIYA, R/O- VILL-N. K. DARRANGA, P.S.-
TAMULPUR, DIST-BAKSA, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL-
JOSHIHATIPARA, MOUZA-GHILAJARI, P.S.-HOWLY, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001.
4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL
REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS (NRC)
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781005.
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/16
DIST- BAKSA (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-781372
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BAKSA BTAD
ASSAM
PIN- 781372.
7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
TAMULPUR
DIST-BAKSA BTAD
ASSAM
PIN-781367
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MS A HUSSAIN,MS M DAS
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 MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 12.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT matters, Border and NRC, respondent nos. 2, 2, 4, 6 and 7; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.3; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no. 5.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Ayna Khatun @ Anowara Khatun, has assailed the opinion dated 26.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, in F.T. Case No. 1651/BAKSA/2016 [arising out of S.P. Page No.# 3/16 (B) Nalbari Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 622/2000], by which it was held that the petitioner had failed to establish her presence in India prior to 25.03.1971, which is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and accordingly, she was declared to be a foreigner who had entered into India illegally after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.
3) As the impugned opinion dated 26.06.2019 has been assailed after more than 6 years, 4 months, 24 days (or 2338 days), by filing this writ petition on 19.11.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on the point of delay and laches.
4) The learned counsel for the petitioner, has made his submissions on merit as well as on the point of delay and laches.
5) On merit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide citizen of India by birth and her grandparents and parents were also citizens of India. The name of her grandfather is recorded in the voters list of 1966. The name of her father appeared along with her grandmother in the voters list of 1970. The names of her grandmother, father, mother and uncle along with the names of the parents of her husband appeared in the voters list of 1989. Her father had shifted his residence in the year 1974 to village Manka Bagan/ Jogeshpur, Natun Basti, Angarkata, P.S. Tamulpur, Dist. Baksa (earlier Nalbari) and accordingly, their names appeared in the voters list of 1993 and 1997. The name of the petitioner had appeared in the voters list of 1997 along with her in- laws family at Vill. Josihatipara, P.S. Howly under No. 43, Barpeta LAC. It has been submitted that the petitioner had exhibited all the relevant documents and examined three witnesses including herself, which proved that she is the daughter of Tara Miya and Jahida Khatun @ Jayeda Khatun, but the learned Page No.# 4/16 Tribunal, without considering the same had mechanically held the petitioner to be a foreigner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate lady from an interior place and she did not know that some anomalies in the names of her parents and other relatives were capable of being seen as if those documents did not prove her citizenship. Moreover, it has been submitted that the petitioner has more documents, which would show that she is a citizen of India.
6) In order to explain the delay, it has been submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate lady. Her engaged counsel had informed her that the order in the case was delivered on 26.06.2019, but she could not make any correspondence with her learned counsel as she was residing at different places with her husband to earn their livelihood. However, in the year 2021, when she had met her learned counsel, she was provided with the certified copy of the opinion that was obtained on 24.02.2021. She then asked her husband to collect all the records from her learned counsel. However, her husband could not collect the records as they were residing outside their district. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner was also declared as a foreigner vide opinion dated 26.09.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, in F.T. Case No. 1785/BAKSA/2016 dated 26.09.2019.
7) It has been submitted that the petitioner and her husband were in Bhutan for their livelihood and in the meantime, she had lost her mobile and therefore, could not contact her learned counsel. Thereafter, upon collecting some money, the petitioner went to meet her learned counsel, who in the meantime, had been residing in Guwahati. Therefore, she could contact and meet her learned counsel only in the month of April, 2025 and could collect her documents and she was advised to file this writ petition and therefore, there has been some inadvertent delay in approaching this Court. It was also submitted Page No.# 5/16 that the petitioner is poor and illiterate and therefore, did not know the law or about the consequences of not challenging the opinion passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the inadvertent delay in approaching this Court may be condoned.
8) To support his submissions that the opinion was passed during Covid-19 period and therefore the time when there was Covid-19 pandemic is liable to be omitted in calculating delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Cognizance For Extension of Limitation: In Re., (2022) 3 SCC 117.
9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC has opposed the admission of this writ petition on the ground of extraordinary delay and laches in approaching the Court. It was also submitted that the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as the Covid-19 pandemic did not exist when the impugned opinion was passed.
10) At the outset, it may be stated that there is a total absence of any cogent and reliable explanation of delay, but the said point shall be discussed a little later. The merit of the case is also examined because the petitioner has projected that she is a bona fide citizen of the Country.
11) In support of her defence that she is not a foreigner, the petitioner has examined three witnesses including herself. She was cross- examined and discharged. The petitioner has exhibited the following documents:-
a. Certified copy of extract of voters list of 1966 of village- Jasihatipara, under 50 No. Barpeta LAC, containing the name of Chandu Miya, son of Meser, age- 34 (Ext.A).
Page No.# 6/16 b. Certified copy of extract of voters list of 1970 of village- Jasihati, under 50 No. Barpeta LAC, containing the name of Misir Nessa, d/w/o- Chandu, age- 29 (Ext.B).
c. Land Revenue paid receipt no. 7366 dated 28.09.32, in the name of Meser Ali of village- Josihati.
d. Kecha Patta dated 30.03.63 in respect of land covered by Patta no. 73, Dag No. 243, of village- Josihati, in the name of Chande Miya, son of Meser (Ext.D). e. Certified copy of extract of voters list of 1993 of village- Menka Bagan/ Jogeshpur, Natun Basti, Angarkata, under 58 No. Tamulpur LAC, containing the name of (i) Sayeda Khatun, d/w/o Tara Miya, age- 36; (ii) Niru Miya, s/o Chandu, age 36; (iii) Tara Miya, s/o Chandu, age 38; (iv) Samal Miya, s/o Chandu, age 26;
(vi) Jamani Miya, s/o Chandu, age 21; (vi) Kalu Miya, s/o Chandu, age 31 (Ext.E). f. Certified copy of extract of voters list of 1997 of village- Menka Bagan/ Jogeshpur, Natun Basti, Angarkata, under 58 No. Tamulpur LAC, containing the name of (i) Tara Miya, s/o Chandu, age 42; (ii) Jayda Khatun, w/o Tara, age 36 (Ext.F).
g. Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) of Ayna Khatun, relation name- Sadek Ali, age 34 years as on 01.10.2013 (Ext.G).
h. PAN Card in the name of Ayna Khatun, d/o Tara Miah, date of birth 01.01.1979, issued on 09.12.2017 (Ext.H).
i. Certificate dated 16.12.2018, issued by Abdul Rahim, Gaonburah of village- Josihatipara, P.S. Howly, Dist. Barpeta, certifying that Ayna Khatun, wife of Sadek Ali is a resident of Josihatipara.
j. Certificate No. 1048 dated 13.07.2015, issued by Aswini Kumar Barman, Lot Mandal and countersigned by the Circle Officer, Tamulpur, stating that Aina Khatun, daughter of Tara Miya and Jahida Khatun of village- N.K. Angarkata, was married on 13-4-1989 (over-written) to Sadek Ali, son of Rumejuddin and Jamela Khatun of Jaisadpara (Ext.J).
k. Affidavit sworn by Ayna Khatun on 27.02.2019 regarding anomaly in names (Ext.K).
12) The petitioner had examined her projected father, namely, Tara Miya, son of Late Chandu, @ Chande Miya of Village- N.K. Darranga, P.S. Tamulpur, Dist. Baksa as OPW-2. He had reiterated the statements made by the petitioner and additionally stated that in the voter list of 1970, his actual age should have been 18 years and the age of his mother should have been 34 years. He has also stated that his brother Md. Kalu Miya was declared as not a Page No.# 7/16 foreigner by opinion dated 29.11.2011, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari in FT(Nal) Case No. (B) 1921/07. He had exhibited the EPIC of Tara Miya, relation name- Sandu, age 56 years as on 30.11.2015. During his cross-examination, he could not say the name of the sister of his father, who is the only sibling of his father. He had stated that his grandfather had died before his birth and he does not know about his grandmother. His mother Misiran, aged 80-85 years lives with him. He had 5 brothers and 2 sisters, namely, himself, Late Momiron, Late Niru Miya, Kalu Miya (45 years), Saman Miya (43 years), Zamal Miya (missing), and Late Basati Khatun. He has 7 children.
13) Abdur Rahim, son of Late Abdul Khalek, resident of Josihatipara was examined as OPW-3 and he had produced his EPIC to show his identity. He had stated that Ayna Khatun is a resident of his village. He had issued the certificate (Ext.I) and Ext.I(1) is his signature. He had issued Ext.I on the basis of voters list of 2018 and he knows her for 20-22 years. In his cross- examination, he had stated that he did not know whether she or her forefathers came from Bangladesh. He became Gaonburah in the year 2014. He had not kept any record except the voters list.
14) The learned Tribunal had rejected the Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.I) by relying on the case of Rupajan Begum v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 578, wherein the Supreme Court of India had held that such certificates by no means establishes the claim of citizenship, but it is only a link document, which has to be supported by other evidence and such certificates has to be verified at two stages, namely, firstly, authenticity of the document itself and secondly, authenticity of the contents otherwise, no reliance can be placed on the same. PAN card (Ext.H), being of recent origin, was discarded as it was not proved through appropriate authority, which results in non-
Page No.# 8/16 admissibility of the said document. Thus, the learned Tribunal had held that there was no necessity to discuss other exhibits, which would be required only if the petitioner was able to establish her link with her projected parents.
15) From the documents exhibited before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has not been able to establish her link with Tara Miya, her projected father. The name of the petitioner does not appear with her projected father in Ext.A to Ext.F. Thus, the only documentary exhibits on which the petitioner is relying to establish her link with her projected father are PAN Card (Ext.H), Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.I), Certificate by Lot Mandal (Ext.J) and self-affidavit (Ext.K).
16) On a perusal of the evidence and copies of those documents, it is seen that the author of Ext.J was not examined to prove the Lot Mandal's certificate. The PAN Card is issued on the basis of self declaration by the concerned authorities in the Income Tax Department and moreover, the same was procured long after the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nalbari and thus, the PAN Card cannot be a conclusive proof of citizenship. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that she was ever an Income Tax payee. A Lot Mandal is not the authority to register marriage or statutorily required to keep an official record of all marriages under his Lot and he has not certified that he had attended the marriage and has personal knowledge. The DW-3 had stated that he had issued the certificate on the basis of the voters list of 2018, but the said voters list was not exhibited. Therefore, in the absence of primary evidence, a certificate by the Lot Mandal would only be a secondary evidence, which would not be admissible without showing why the primary evidence could not be proved. It was projected vide Ext.C that the grandfather's father of the petitioner, namely, Meser Ali owned and possessed a Page No.# 9/16 plot of land, but no attempt has been made to show that after the death of Meser Ali, that land devolved on the projected grandfather and father of the petitioner. Similarly, by referring to Ext.D, it was projected that the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Chandu Miya, had owned and possessed a plot of land, but no attempt has been made to show that after the death of Chandu Miya, that land devolved on the projected father of the petitioner.
17) In this case, the petitioner is being accused of being an illegal migrant/ foreigner who had illegally entered into India after 25.03.1971, oral evidence of a person as the projected father, in the absence of any documentary evidence, would not be sufficient or adequate to prove the citizenship of the petitioner. Similarly, merely by oral evidence, the petitioner cannot prove that she is the daughter of her projected father.
18) In the case of Basiron Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 692, the Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.A) was exhibited. The Gaonburah was examined as a witness. In the said certificate it was stated that Basiron Nessa is the daughter of Late Abdul Barek and Rabia Khatun. The Gaonburah had stated in his cross examination that he had issued the certificate after looking at the voters lists of 1966 and 1971. Under the said facts, it was held that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony.
19) In the case of Bijoy Das v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 4 GLR 599: 2018 (3) GLT 118, this Court has held that it is trite that mere filing of written statement and oral testimony in a proceeding under Foreigners Act, 1946 would not be enough. The fact-in-issue would have to be proved by the proceedee by adducing documentary evidence which are admissible and relevant.
Page No.# 10/16
20) Thus, oral evidence of OPW-2, stating that the petitioner is his daughter, is not sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner is his daughter and that she is a citizen of India.
21) Thus, on merit, the impugned opinion passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with or held to be perverse for non-consideration of relevant evidence, or for taking into consideration extraneous materials.
22) The point of delay and laches, is now taken up for consideration.
23) It is apparent that the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner by the learned Foreigners Tribunal by opinion dated 26.06.2019. Within 3 (three) months, as per the statement made in paragraph nos. 35 and 36 of this writ petition, the husband of the petitioner was also declared as a foreigner by opinion dated 26.09.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, in F.T. Case No. 1785/BAKSA/2016. The petitioner has admitted that she did not meet her learned counsel ever thereafter. Nonetheless, her learned counsel had obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 24.02.2021.
24) The relevant statement that the petitioner has made in paragraph nos. 36 and 37 of the writ petition, is extracted hereinbelow:-
"36. ... That the petitioner beg to state that the argument was completed on 07- 06-2019 and the case was fixed for delivery of judgment/ opinion and the petitioner came to learn from her engaged advocate that the impugned order was delivered on 26-06-2019, but the petitioner could not make any correspondence with her engaged counsel as because the petitioner went to different places with her husband to earn bread and as such, the petitioner could not make any correspondence with her engaged advocate. However, in the month of June, 2021, the petitioner anyhow contacted the engaged counsel during Covid-19 period and the engaged advocate informed the petitioner that the certified copy of the opinion/ judgment was obtained on 24/02/2021. ..."
37. ... After taking the copy of the impugned opinion, the petitioner again met her counsel, who advised to file a case before the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, Page No.# 11/16 the petitioner again obtained the certified copy of the opinion on 23.06.2025 to verify the certified copy obtained on 24.02.2021 and after collecting all the records, the petitioner came to Guwahati and met her engaged advocate and handed over the entire records to the engaged counsel on 26.10.2025 and accordingly filed this writ petition before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court after a lapse of 2,361 days i.e. about 79 months."
25) Thus, the petitioner, who claims to be rustic and poor, does not believe her learned counsel and also did not believe the contents of the certified copy of the impugned opinion obtained on 24.02.2021, but waited for 4 years, 3 months, 22 days to apply for a second certified copy on 15.06.2025, which was collected on 23.06.2025, just to verify the contents of the certified copy obtained earlier on 24.02.2021.
26) Moreover, the petitioner has not provided any verifiable information as to where she was living and/or working for gain from 26.06.2019 till she filed this writ petition. Thus, it is apparent that after she and her husband were declared as foreigners vide opinion dated 26.06.2019 and 26.09.2019, they vanished from their last known address, in order to avoid detection and expulsion from India (Assam).
27) The decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Cognizance For Extension of Limitation: In Re (supra) , could have come to the aid of the petitioner had the writ petition been filed immediately after extension of period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the Covid-19 period was over.
28) Thus, except for the statement that the petitioner is poor, could not contact her learned counsel and did not know the consequences of the opinion, cannot be acceptable as a good and cogent explanation for the extraordinary delay and laches of 6 years, 4 months, 24 days (or 2338 days) in Page No.# 12/16 assailing the opinion dated 26.06.2019. If the explanation, as given by the petitioner is accepted then in every case, the delay and laches has to be condoned as it is the principle of "delay defeats equity" is no longer a legal principle that would apply in this Country.
29) In respect of inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion after a lapse of 6 years, 4 months, 24 days (or 2338 days), it may be stated that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition, but unless the petitioner demonstrates good and cogent reason, delay and laches would disentitle the petitioner to equitable relief on the principle that delay defeats equity. If one needs any authority on the point, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 INSC 314: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 351, and Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. V. Ram Gopal, (2020) 13 SCC 225: (2020) 0 Supreme(SC) 93 (Full Bench). In the later case, while approving the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , it was held to the effect that limitation does not strictly apply to a proceeding under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time and the High Courts were cautioned by observing that prolonged delay of many years ought not to have been overlooked or condoned. Paragraph 16 thereof [as extracted from (2020) 0 Supreme(SC) 93 ] is quoted below:-
"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester.
Page No.# 13/16 Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 this Court observed thus:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". ...It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment." (emphasis supplied)."
30) The Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 46 of the case of Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi, 2024 INSC 980: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1189, has reiterated the law that undue delay in approaching the Court can be a ground for refusing relief and it has been expressed that that only in exceptional cases, delay can be condoned. The said paragraph 46 [extracted from (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1189 ] is quoted below:-
"46. As regards the appellant's challenge to the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing of the writ petitions by the respondents, we are of the view that the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is true that the courts have consistently held that undue delay in approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the delay must be condoned."
31) In respect of the legal proposition that delay and laches is fatal to a belated challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Jonali Das v. Union of India, 2018 (5) GLT 492: (2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1186 . Paragraph 9 thereof is as follows:-
"9. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.4971/2018, disposed of on 01.08.2018], this Court had observed as follows:-
"It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has Page No.# 14/16 been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention of the people. Interest of the State is 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. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. 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."
32) 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.
33) Moreover, 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 with 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. A similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813 .
34) It must be taken note of the fact that the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, Page No.# 15/16 in paragraph 73, had 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 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.
35) Be that as it may, as the issue of citizenship has been raised, notwithstanding the delay and laches, the Court has carefully examined the materials available in the writ petition and on merit, the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with on any count. Thus, the challenge to the impugned opinion dated 26.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, in F.T. Case No. 1651/BAKSA/2016 [arising out of S.P.(B) Nalbari Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 622/2000], by which it was held that the petitioner is an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971, fails.
36) Resultantly, on merit, as well as on the ground of inordinate delay and laches of 6 years, 4 months, 24 days (or 2338 days), in assailing the impugned opinion, this writ petition filed by Ayna Khatun @ Anowara Khatun, is dismissed at the "motion stage" without issuing notice upon the respondents.
Page No.# 16/16 The consequences of the said opinion shall follow.
37) There shall be no order as to cost. 38) 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 Foreigners Tribunal for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant