Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010205342019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6566/2019 SOBHA BISWAS @ SHOVA RANI SEN D/O- LT BIRENDRA CHANDRA SEN, W/O- SRI BIMAL BISWAS, R/O- SARUPATGAON, P.O. KHELMATI, P.S. CHARIDHAR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. THROUGH THE SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH- THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT.. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY-5 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER SONITPUR P.O. TEZPUR Page No.# 2/7 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SONITPUR P.O. TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS P DIHINGIA,MR. F A HASSAN,MS A DAS,MS. S F MAITAI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 29.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned CGC; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Page No.# 3/7 the petitioner, namely, Sobha Biswas @ Shova Rani Sen, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 27.02.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th Sonitpur, Balipara, in. Case No. FTDC 664/16, arising out of Ref TZP/(B)/1046/07, dated 28.03.07, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. Pursuant to receipt of notice the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement, where apart from usual denial, the petitioner had stated that she was born and brought up at village-Lulukai, P.S- Dhekiajuli, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam and she had studied in Aurobindo Bidya Niketan, Lulukai, No.2 Pirakata in the district of Sonitpur upto Class-VI and left the school on 31.12.1971 and according to the admission register, her date of birth is 04.05.1979 and the Head Master of the said school had issued her transfer certificate vide Sl No.754 dated 09.06.2005, where her name was recorded as Shoba Rani Sen and her father’s name was recorded as Birendra Ch. Sen. She got married about 20 years back to Sri Bimal Biswas of village- Sarupatgaon, P.S-Tezpur, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam and since her marriage she has been residing at her matrimonial place of residence and permanently using her paternal surname “Sen”. The Lat Gaonburah of village-Lulukai has issued a certificate regarding her marriage. Her parents had casted their vote and their names appeared in the voter list of 1965 of the same village under No.76 Missamari LAC. Her father died about 30 years back and in his lifetime he had purchased a plot of land and was paying land revenue for the same and her mother is presently a voter of 72 No. Barchala LAC. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed to be an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. 4. In support of her defence, the petitioner had filed her evidence-on- affidavit and while reiterating the statements made in the written statement, had Page No.# 4/7 exhibited the school certificate dated 09.06.2005 as Ext.A; PAN Card as Ext.B; her mother’s Elector Photo Identity Card as Ext.C and her mother’s PAN Card as Ext.D and the voter detail of 1965 showing the name of her father (Ext.E). The petitioner, while examining herself as DW-1, on the Tribunal’s query as to whether her family had been proceeded in the Foreigners Tribunal, she replied in the negative. 5. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record rejected the school certificate (Ext.A) in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp SCC 604, by holding that the school certificate has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or gave the information relating to the date of birth is examined. In this case the issuing authority had not been examined along with the admission register to prove the entries. The PAN Card of the petitioner (Ext.B) and her mother (Ext.D) were rejected as they were not Income Tax payees and did not exhibit any Income Tax return and in this regard reliance was placed in the case of Narmada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kr. Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 475. Accordingly, as the Elector Photo Identity Card has been held to be not a sufficient supporting document for citizenship in the case of Babul Islam Vs. State of Assam and Ors., WP(C)/3547/2016, decided on 09.05.2018, it was held that the said identity card would not be a proof of citizenship. Accordingly, the petitioner was held to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the exhibited documents and had submitted that as the petitioner would exhibit the voter list of 1965 which contains the name of her father Birendra Ch. Sen son of Bijoy and the link of the petitioner to her projected father can be proved through the school certificate (Ext.A) and that the PAN Card containing the name of her Page No.# 5/7 father (Ext.B) and submitted that the petitioner was not a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 7. Opposing the challenge the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion and has stated that the petitioner has failed to establish her link with the persons whose names appeared in the voter detail of 1965 (Ext.E). 8. Considering the submission made at the bar and also perused the records of the learned Tribunal, which was called for. 9. On a perusal of the records, it appears that the documents which were proved as Ext.E is the NRC voter detail, which the petitioner claims to be the voter detail of the year 1965. It is well settled that the NRC voter detail is not proof of citizenship. In this case the copy of Ext.E available in the record disclosed that it has an image Id: 19206699 and it is further stated that the same is generated by DLDD version 2.5, which is sufficient to indicate that this is a computer print out from the voter detail available in the website of the State Co- ordinator of National Register of Citizens. Therefore, being a the computer generated print out, the provision of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 be applicable and computer generated print out has to be proved in the manner prescribed thereunder, which was not done. Therefore, Ext. E does not have any evidentiary value. 10. The learned Tribunal had rightly rejected the evidentiary value of the school certificate (Ext.A) as the author of the certificate did not come and depose along with the school admission register which is the primary evidence and the transfer certificate would be secondary evidence. 11. The PAN Card (Ext.B) and (Ext.D) as well as the Elector Photo Identity Card of the petitioner’s mother (Ext.C) were all post 25.03.1971 documents and Page No.# 6/7 in this case the petitioner has not disclosed anything which indicates that she or her mother are an Income Tax Payees. Therefore, the entries in the PAN Card were as per the disclosure made by the petitioner. This Court in the case of Musstt. Rubiya Khautun Vs. Union of India and Ors., WP(C)/4986/2016, decided on 09.02.2018, held that the PAN Card is not a trustworthy document for proof of citizenship more so when the proceedee is not an Income Tax payee and it was further held that the PAN Card was not proved by calling the Income Tax Officials regarding the application for the PAN Card. It was further held that if the PAN Card contains the date of birth, the petitioner should have mentioned it in her written statement. In this case as per the entries contained in the school certificate (Ext.A), the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 04.05.1979 whereas in the PAN Card (Ext.B) the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 04.09.1979. Thus, there appears to be a variation in the date of birth of the petitioner. 12. Be that as it may, the petitioner had not exhibited the voter list of 1965 wherein she claims that the name of her father is recorded. The existence of her father and her mother is not disclosed in any documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed the date of death of her father and about the continuous stay of the parents of the petitioner after 1965 and their names continuously appearing in any voter list together after 1965. The petitioner has also not disclosed anything regarding her grandparents, the siblings of her father or her own siblings. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal as the exhibited documents could not link the petitioner to her projected parents. 14. Resultantly, the challenge made in this writ petition fails and the writ Page No.# 7/7 petition is dismissed. 15. The consequences of the said opinion shall follow. 16. The Registry shall return back the Tribunals records along with a copy of this order to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant