Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010132822020 2025:GAU-AS:12760 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3939/2020 IMAN ALI S/O- BBUR ALI @ BABURALI @ BABUR ALI SHEKH, R/O- VILL- BALAJANI CHECHAPANI (DURGAPUR), P.O. KAKOIJANA, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION INDIA NEW DELHI-01 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY-5 PIN- 781005 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN- 781 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE ABHAYAPURI P.S. DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MR. Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 15.10.2025 (S.K. Medhi , J.) The judgment in the present writ petition was delivered on 17.09.2025. However, it has subsequently come to our notice that in paragraph 10 of the said judgment where certain observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 were quoted, there is an apparent mismatch in the paragraphs and the contents. Accordingly, the present order clarifying the same. The relevant observations are as follows: “40. It is very important to note here that the IMDT Act does not contain any provision similar to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 regarding burden of proof. On the contrary it is conspicuously silent about it. In such circumstances a very heavy burden is cast Page No.# 3/5 upon the authorities of the State or the applicant to establish that a person is an illegal migrant as defined in Section 3(1)(c) of the IMDT Act and is liable for deportation. 41. Rule 4 requires an inquiry officer to elicit information and particulars from the alleged illegal migrant on the points mentioned in Form I. Items 5, 10, 11, 12 of this form are as under: 5. Address in the country of origin (village, police station, district and country). 10. Does the person hold any passport issued by any foreign country? If so, furnish particulars. 11. What are the reasons for leaving the person’s country of origin? 12. If the person has entered into India without a passport, how the person entered India? (Name of village, district from which the person entered). Date of entry. … 83. To sum up our conclusions, the provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 are ultra vires the Constitution and are accordingly struck down. The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are also ultra vires and are struck down. As a result, the Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall cease to function. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and the Passport Act, 1967 shall apply to the Page No.# 4/5 State of Assam. All cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall stand transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, the Rules made thereunder and the procedure prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. In view of the finding that the competent authority and the Screening Committee had no authority or jurisdiction to reject any proceedings initiated against any alleged illegal migrant, the orders of rejection passed by such authorities are declared to be void and non est in the eye of law. It will be open to the authorities of the Central Government or the State Government to initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against all such persons whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals constituted under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 by the competent authority whether on account of the recommendation of the Screening Committee or any other reason whatsoever. The appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunals shall be deemed to have abated. 84. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the following directions: (1) The provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are declared to be ultra vires the Constitution and are struck down. (2) The Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall Page No.# 5/5 cease to function. (3) All cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall stand transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, the Rules made thereunder and the procedure prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (4) It will be open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against all such persons whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals by the competent authority whether on account of the recommendation of the Screening Committee or any other reason whatsoever. (5) All appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to have abated. (6) The respondents are directed to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal with cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or are illegally residing in Assam.” Let this order be read as a part of the judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed in this case. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant