Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010136702025 2025:GAU-AS:12856-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3563/2025 MUSSTT. SAFURA KHATUN D/O LATE NOOR ALI, W/O ZAMIR ALI, R/O VILL- RUPAHI BARPETA, P.S.- RUPOHIHAT, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782125 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (3RD) NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.O. AND DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 Page No.# 2/6 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE RUPOHIHAT P.S. DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 7:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 8:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS (NRC) BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A J ATIA, MS A H ATIA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 17.09.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Md. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. S.T. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Safura Khatun, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 26.10.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (3rd), Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. 219/2016, arising out of FT Case No. 426/15, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 Page No.# 3/6 stream. 3. We put on record that the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has opposed the challenge to the said impugned opinion. 4. On perusal of the records of the Tribunal, that have been called for, the Court notices that the petitioner had examined herself as OPW-1, one Azimuddin as OPW-2, who had affixed his signature in the deposition sheet as Md. Azim Uddin, Shri Gopal Chetry, the Assistant Headmaster of Sildubi M.E. School, who was examined as OPW-3 and he had exhibited the cover page of the School Admission Register as Ext.1(1), the relevant page of the School Register containing the name of the petitioner (proved in original) as Ext. 1(2), and the counter-folio of the certificate issued by the school was exhibited as Ext.1(3), and his signature in the certificate was marked as Ext.1(4). The petitioner has also examined one Mustafa Ali as OPW-4, who claims that the petitioner is his elder sister and he has exhibited a copy of voters list of 1966 as Ext.3, copy of voters list of 1970 as Ext. 4, copy of voters list of 1997 as Ext.5, copy of voters list of 2010 as Ext. 6, copy of voters list of 2014 as Ext.7. It is also noticed that pursuant to petition No.3239/19, dated 24.09.2019, the learned Tribunal had passed an order allowing the petitioner to summon the Election Officer, Hojai. 5. We also take notice that in the records of the Tribunal, there is a letter bearing number HJEL.19/2019/264, dated 20.02.2020, issued by the In-Charge Election Officer, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, verifying the authenticity of the voters list/electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 and has stated that the on verification, the same are found to be genuine. As per the endorsement made in the body of the said letter, it appears that the learned Tribunal had received the said communication on 24.02.2020 at 12.30 pm. However, that was not the date Page No.# 4/6 fixed for the proceedings and therefore, the matter was not put up before the learned Member. The case was thereafter listed on 30.03.2020, 28.05.2020 and 08.07.2020, but due to lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic, nobody was represented. It appears that notice of the learned Tribunal has never brought to the letter and enclosures of the Election Officer dated 20.02.2020, which is available at page nos. 69 to 72 of the Tribunal’s record. 6. It is seen that the learned Tribunal, in the impugned opinion though did not discard the documents, which were marked as Ext.1(1) to Ext.1(4). But the School Transfer Certificate (Ext.1) was discarded only because the OPW-3 did not bring the Students’ Attendance Register, where the name of the petitioner appeared. Moreover, in paragraph-13(iii), the learned Tribunal had recorded that except for voters list of 1966 to 1970, no other voter lists have been proved. In this regard, on examination of the Tribunal’s record, it is seen that except for Ext.1 to Ext.1(4), the learned Tribunal has not affixed its authentication signature to any of the exhibited documents, including Ext.3 and 4, which are the certified copies of voters list of 1966 and 1970. 7. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence, which is available on record and the finding that no other voters list was exhibited is found to be contrary to the context of the paragraph-11 of the impugned opinion, where the learned Tribunal has mentioned that OPW-4 has exhibited Ext.3 to 8, which are voters list of 1966, 1970, 1997, 2005, 2010 and 2014. 8. Therefore, in light of the contents of the paragraph-11 and 13(iii), the finding of paragraph 13(iii) of the impugned opinion appears to be perverse, rendered without appreciating the evidence, which is available on record and also referred to in paragraph-11 of the said opinion. Page No.# 5/6 9. As the petitioner had taken steps to summon the Election Officer, when the learned Tribunal received the communication from the Election Office, it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to make it known to the learned counsel for the petitioner that it had received a communication from the Election Officer, as referred to hereinbefore. 10. Under such circumstances, having found that the impugned opinion is vitiated for non-consideration of the evidence on record and taking into consideration the non-availability of the Admission Register, which was never called for. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has not referred to any Act, Rules of notification that attendance register is a link document without which admission register cannot be proved. 11. The learned Tribunal has not referred to any substantive provisions of law and rules made thereunder applicable for the M.E. Schools in the State of Assam to maintain record of the Attendance Register of the students, the Court is of the considered opinion that this is an issue which has to be relooked by the learned Tribunal. 12. Resultantly, in view of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned opinion dated 26.10.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (3rd), Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. 219/2016 cannot be sustained on facts and in law owing to non-consideration of the evidence on record. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal for a fresh decision after re-appreciation of the evidence on record and to give liberty to the petitioner to take such steps as the petitioner may be so advised in respect of the documents produced by the Election Office as referred above. Similarly, if the State authorities so desires, them may also Page No.# 6/6 take steps to call for the school attendance register. 13. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (3rd), Nagaon on or before 24.10.2025 without any requirement for the learned Tribunal to issue any fresh notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall communicate this order to the petitioner. 14. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the learned Tribunal on the date fixed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner absent on call and pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper. 15. Registry shall send the record back to the learned Tribunal expeditiously. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant