Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010205842021 2025:GAU-AS:10913-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6840/2021 SOBURA KHATUN D/O- ABDUL SABUR @ A SABUR @ ABDUS SABUR W/O- KADDUS ALI @ KUDDUS ALI VILL- BARAKALIA NASKORA, PS- FAKIRGANJ, DIAT- DHUBRI, ASSAM- 783330 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6 4:THE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY-05 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM Page No.# 2/18 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) GOALPARA DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM 7:THE OC FAKIRGANJ POLICE STATION DIST- DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, S SEKH,MR. M U MAHMUD,MR. R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 14.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2) Pursuant to the reference forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, bearing Ref. FT Case No. 122/10, dated 29.06.2010, expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Sobura Khatun, wife of Md. Kuddus Ali Sikdar, F.T. Case No. FT (G-4) M/327/18 was registered before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4th, Goalpara. 3) On receipt of notice, the petitioner has appeared before the Page No.# 3/18 said learned Tribunal and filed her written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed her evidence-in-affidavit, thereby examining herself as DW-1 and she had also examined her projected father, namely, Abdul Sabur @ A. Sabur @ Abdus Sabur, son of Late Akheruddin Sheikh @ Akher Sharkar @ Akheruddin @ Akher Sarker as DW-2. The petitioner had also examined one Amjad Hussain, Secretary, Guriadhap Gaon Panchayat as DW-3. All the witnesses were cross- examined. 4) Along with the evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had exhibited the following documents: i. Certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.A). ii. Certified copy of voter list of 1971 (Ext.B). iii. Certified copy of voter list of 1977 (Ext.C). iv. Certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.D). v. Certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.E). vi. Certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.F). vii. Certified copy of voter list of 2005 (Ext.G). viii. Link certificate issued by the Secretary, 51 No. Baladmari Char Gaon Panchayat dated 20.06.2015 (Ext.H). ix. Certified copy of voter list of 2005 (Ext.I). x. Certified copy of voter list of 2011 (Ext.J). xi. Electoral Voter Identity Card (Ext.K). xii. Certified copy of voter list of 2016 (Ext.L). xiii. Certified copy of voter list of 2018 (Ext.M). xiv. Final Draft NRC (Ext.N). 5) During his examination, the said Amjad Hussain (DW-3) had exhibited the certificate issued by him as Ext.W, where Ext.W(1) is his signature and Ext.W(2) is the counter signature of the BDO, Matia. No other documents have been exhibited by the petitioner. 6) Thereafter, by opinion dated 31.07.2019, the reference was answered in favour of the State and against the petitioner, declaring her to be a Page No.# 4/18 foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 7) The said opinion dated 31.07.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4th, Goalpara in Case No. FT (G-4) M/327/18, has been assailed by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while deciding the reference, the learned Tribunal had framed the following two points for determination: (i) Whether the proceedee Sobura Khatun is the daughter of Abdul Sobur? (ii) If so, whether Abdul Sobur is a citizen of India? 9) In this regard, after referring to the exhibited documents, it was held that it was crystal clear that the petitioner is the daughter of Abdul Sobur. Accordingly, the said issue was decided in affirmative. 10) In respect of issue no.2 as to whether Abdul Sobur is a citizen of India, after referring to the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal had rejected the said plea on the ground that the same were laden with gross discrepancy and inconsistency, rendering them as untrustworthy and unbelievable. Resultantly, it was held that that the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner is not born and brought up through genuine Indian parents in Indian soil. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Sobura Khatun, wife of Md. Kuddus Ali Sikdar, was held to be a foreigner, who has entered into India after 25.03.1971. 11) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to minor discrepancies in the name of the projected father and projected Page No.# 5/18 grandfather of the petitioner, documentary evidence was discarded by the learned Tribunal. In this regard, it has further been submitted that the petitioner has exhibited voters list of the years 1966, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1997, 2005, 2016 and 2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also exhibited the final draft of NRC containing her name. It is also submitted that a Foreigners Tribunal case was registered against her younger sister, namely, Musstt. Jamiron Nessa, who was declared to be not a foreigner vide opinion dated 03.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, in F.T. Case No. 2664/G/2010, arising out of Reference No. GLP(B)/42/2001/3651, Dist. Case No. 219/2001. Accordingly, it has been submitted that as the petitioner is a member of the same family, while her sister was declared to be not a foreigner, the impugned opinion, declaring her to be a foreigner is unsustainable on facts and in law. 12) It has been specifically submitted that the name of said Jamiron Nessa is disclosed in the written statement filed by the petitioner as well as in her evidence-on-affidavit. It has also been submitted that the projected father of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Sabur, was also examined as DW-2 and though he had supported the case of the petitioner, his evidence was discarded. 13) It has also been submitted that in her written statement, the petitioner had made a specific statement regarding shifting of her parental family from village- Monirchar Part-I to Helapakhri, under Mornoi Police Station, Dist- Goalpara about 11 years ago. 14) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that although the petitioner has exhibited various voters list, but the names appearing in the voters list of 1966 (Ext.A) are not common in any other voters list exhibited by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted Page No.# 6/18 that the issue before the learned Tribunal was whether Abdul Subur, whose name appears in the voter list of the year 1971 (Ext.B), son of Akher Sarkar is also the son of Akheruddin Sheikh, which name is mentioned in other exhibited documents. 15) In this regard, it is submitted that all the voters of voter list of 1985 are not the voters in the voter list of 1971. Accordingly, he opposes any interference with the impugned opinion. 16) In support of his submission, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has cited the following cases, viz. (1) Bijoy Das v. Union of India, 2018 (3) GLT 118; (2) Asia Khatun v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 4020/2017, decided on 21.11.2019; (3) Rupjan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579; (4) Nasirudin V. Union of India, WP(C) 3728/2016, decided on 05.04.2018; and (5) Sirajul Hoque v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 534. 17) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and her father, who appeared as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively, were cross-examined by the prosecution and the evidence tendered by said witnesses could not be demolished. 18) In her written statement, the petitioner has stated that her grandfather is Late Akheruddin Sheikh @ Akher Sarkar and the name of her grandmother is Late Moyfal Nessa. She had stated that her grandparents had seven sons, namely, Late Foyejuddin Sheikh, Late Tofijuddin, Late Asor Uddin, Mofijuddin, Late Fulchand Sheikh, Abdul Sabur and Late Abdul Gafur. The name of her father is Abdul Sabur @ A. Sabur and the name of her mother is Sahera Khatun Bibi @ Sahera Khatun. She had stated that her parents had seven children, Sabiya Bibi, Sabura Khatun (petitioner), Jamiron Nessa, Saban Ali, Page No.# 7/18 Sabanon Nessa, Saleha Khatun and Rokiya Begum. It has been stated that the name of her grandfather along with elder uncles and aunts are recorded in the voter list of 1966 of Village Monirchar Part-I, under 31 No. Mankachar LAC, and the name of her parents appear in the additional voter lists of 1971 of the same village. Their names also appear in the voter list of 1977, 1985, 1989 and 2005 of same village, but now falling under 22 No. South Salmara LAC. It has been stated that due to river erosion, about 11 years ago, her parental family had shifted from village- Monirchar Part-I to Helapakhri under Mornoi P.S., Dist. Goalpara. She had also stated that she was born and brought-up at village- Monirchar Part-I about 40 years ago and on attaining the age of puberty, she was married with Kuddus Ali, son of Asoruddin, of village- Barakalia Naskora, under South Salmara (now Fakirganj) P.S., in Dhubri District about 28 years ago and since then she has been living with her husband. She has also stated that she has three children, namely, Kohinur Begum, Sahabuddin Ali and Shaijuddin Ali. She has stated that after marriage, she has been working with her husband in various places in India for her livelihood for which the name of her husband is not recorded in the voter list of 1997. Her name, Sabura Khatun along with her husband’s name, Kaddus Ali, have been recorded in the voter list of 2005, 2011, 2016 and 2018 of Village- Barakalia Naskora, under No. 22 South Salmara LAC. She has also stated that as a regular voter, she has got Elector Voter Identity Card (EPIC for short). She has also stated that her name has appeared in the final draft NRC, published on 30.07.2018. 19) The petitioner has further stated in her written statement that it is a common phenomenon in rural areas, more particularly in the Muslim Community, to have more than one name or there being variation in the name. It was stated that the name of the father of the opposite party has been Page No.# 8/18 recorded in the voter's list of 1971, 1989 as Abdul Sabur, in the voter's list of 1977, 1997, 2005, 2010 as A: Sabur, in Elector Photo Identity Card as Abdus Sobur, in the voter's list of 1985 as Sabur Mia and in the link certificate of the opposite party as Abdul Sobur. That Abdul Sabur, A: Sabur, Sabur Mia, Abdul Sobur and Abdus Sobur all are the name of same and one person i.e. the name of the father of the opposite party. These mistakes are committed by the Govt. officials, where the opposite party has no excess at all. The mother of the opposite party has been recorded in the voter's list of 1971 and in the link certificate of the opposite party as Shahera Khatun Bibi, in the voter's list 1977 as Shahera Khatun, in the voter's list of 1985, 2005, 2010 as Shahera Bibi, in the voter's list of 1989, 1997 as Shahera Khatun. That Shahera Khatun Bibi, Shahera Khatun and Shahera Bibi all are the name same and one person i.e. name of the mother of the opposite party. These mistakes are committed by the Govt. officials, where the opposite party has no excess at all. The opposite party is an Indian citizen by birth and is not a foreigner or an illegal migrant of 1966- 1971 stream or after that as alleged. 20) The evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner is more or less a replica of the written statement. In her cross-examination, the petitioner, as DW-1 had stated as follows:- “My father name is Abdul Subur and mother's name is Sahera Khatun. My father is a voter of 1971. My father have 7 brothers. My father presently residing at Helepakhri. My father shifted to this place from Monirchar 10 years ago. The name of my grandfather is Akher Sarkar. My grandfather casted his vote in the year 1966. Amir Uddin is also the name of my grandfather. It is not a fact that Akher Sarkar and Amir Uddin are not the same person. It is not a fact that my father is not a voter in 1971.” 21) The petitioner had examined Abdul Sabur @ A. Sabur @ Abdus Sabur, son of Late Akheruddin Sheikh @ Akhter Sharkar @ Akheruddin @ Akher Page No.# 9/18 Sarkar, resident of village- Helapakhri as DW-2. The statement made in his evidence-on-affidavit is also more or less a replica of the statement by the petitioner in her evidence-on-affidavit. In his cross-examination, he has stated as follows:- “The proceedee is my daughter. I have one son and 6 daughters. I am a voter of 1971. We are 7 brothers. My father is a voter of 1966. My father’s name is Akher Uddin Sarkar @ Akher Uddin sk. There is no any other name of my father. The procedee was given marriage at Barkalia Naskara.” 22) The following names appear in various voters list:- a. Voter List of 1966 (Ext.A): (1) Akheruddin Sheikh, son of Ali Muddin [M/70]; (2) Foyejuddin Sheikh, son of Akheruddin [M/37]; (3) Nurjan Bibi, wife of Foyejuddin [F/28]; (4) Tofijuddin Sheikh, son of Akheruddin [M/32]; (5) Rohimon Bibi, wife of Tofijuddin [F/21]; (6) Mofijuddin Sheikh, son of Akheruddin [M/25]. These voters are of Monir Char Part-I village. b. Voter list of 1971 (Ext.B): (1) Fuljan Nessa Bibi, wife of Mofujuddin [F/24]; (2) Sahera Khatun Bibi, wife of Abdul Sabur [F/21]; (3) Abdul Sabur, son of Akher Sarkar [M/25]; (4) Asor Uddin, son of Akher Sarkar [M/35]; (5) Kulsum Bibi, son of Asor Uddin [F/30]. These voters are of Monir Char Part-I village. c. Voter List of 1977 (Ext.C): (1) Mofijuddin, son of Ameruddin [M/age not given]; (2) Fuljan, wife of Mofijuddin [F/age not given]; (3) A. Sabur, son of Ameruddin [M/age not given]; (4) Shahera Khatun, wife of A. Sabur [F/27]; (5) Fulchan Sheikh, son of Ameruddin [M/32]. These voters are of Monir Char Part-I village. d. Voter List of 1985 (Ext.D): (1) Sabur Miya, son of Akher Sarkar [M/42]; (2) Shahera Bibi, wife of Sabur Miya [F/34]. These voters are of Monir Char Part-I village. e. Voter List of 1989 (Ext.E): (1) Abdul Sabur, son of Akher [M/42]; (2) Shahera Khatun, wife of Sabur Miya [F/34]. These voters are of Monir Char Part-I village. f. Voter List of 1997 (Ext.F): (1) Tohij Uddin, son of Akher Uddin Sheikh [M/66]; (2) Mohimon Nessa, wife of Tohij [F/55]; (3) Hashem Ali, son of Tohij [M/22]; (4) A. Sabur, son of Akher Uddin [M/50]; (5) Shahera Khatun, wife of A. Sabur [F/42]. These voters are of Monir Char Part-I village. g. Voter List of 2005 (Ext.G): (1) A. Sabur, son of Akher Sarkar [M/52]; (2) Shahera Bibi, wife of A. Sabur [F/45]. These voters are of Monirchar Part-I village. h. Voter List of 2005 (Ext.I): (1) Kaddus Ali, son of Asor Uddin [M/33]; (2) Shahera Bibi, wife of Kaddus Ali [F/31]. These voters are of Borkaliya Naskara Page No.# 10/18 village. i. Voter List of 2011 (Ext.J): (1) A. Sabur, son of Asor Uddin [M/37]; (2) Shahera Bibi, wife of Kaddus Ali [F/35]. These voters are of Borkaliya Noskara village. j. Voter List of 2016 (Ext.L): (1) Kaddus Ali, son of Asor Uddin [M/40]; (2) Sabura Khatun, wife of Kaddus Ali [F/38]. These voters are of Borkaliya Naskara village. k. Voter List of 2018 (Ext.M): (1) Kaddus Ali, son of Asor Uddin [M/41]; (2) Sabura Khatun, wife of Kaddus Ali [F/39]. These voters are of Borkaliya Noskara village. 23) The other three documents exhibited by the petitioner are (a) Link certificate issued by the Secretary, 51 No. Baladmari Char Gaon Panchayat (Ext.H), Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) (Ext.L) and Final Draft of National Register of Citizen (NRC for short) of July, 2018 (Ext.N). 24) Thus, on a perusal of the exhibited documents, it is seen that the name of the projected grandfather of the petitioner is different in the exhibited voter lists. In the voter list of 1966, it is Akheruddin Sheikh; Akher Sarkar in the voter list of 1971; Ameruddin in the voter list of 1977; Akher Sarkar in the voter list of 1985; Akher in the voter list of 1989; Akher Uddin Sheikh in the voter list of 1997; Akher Sarkar in the voter list of 2005. The name of the projected father of the petitioner does not appear in the vote list of 1966. However, in the voter list of 1971, it is Abdul Sabur; A. Sabur in voter list of 1977; Sabur Miya in the vote list of 1985; Abdul Sabur in voter list of 1989; A. Sabur in voter list of 1997 and 2005. 25) The voter lists of 2011, 2016 and 2018 and EPIC are not relevant because the name of the petitioner appears in these exhibited documents, but they are of post 25.03.1971, the cut-off date of entry into India (Assam). Though the petitioner has exhibited the draft of NRC as on 30.07.2018 (Ext.N), containing her name, but the petitioner has not been able to show any Page No.# 11/18 notification from the competent authority that the said “draft NRC” is “final NRC and duly notified”. 26) The projected father of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Sabur @ A. Sabur @ Abdus Sabur was examined as DW-2. He has given his address as Helapakhri. In paragraph 20 of her written statement filed on 31.12.2018, the petitioner has stated that due to erosion of Brahmaputra, 11 years ago, the parental family of the petitioner had shifted from Monirchar Part-I village to village- Helapakhri, which would mean that the shifting had taken place sometime in the year 2007. However, the said village name does not appear in any of the exhibited voter lists. Though the certificate issued by the Secretary, 51 No. Baladmari Gaon Panchayat (Ext.H) is rendered inadmissible in evidence because of unauthorized use of State Emblem of Pillar of Asoka, yet as per the said certificate, issued on 20.06.2015, Abdul Sabur, projected father of the petitioner is a resident of Helapakhri and the petitioner was also a resident of the said village. However, there is no explanation, why the name of the projected father of the petitioner has appeared in the voter lists of village- Monirchar Part-I. 27) Thus, the only presumption that can be drawn from the exhibited documents is that the petitioner is claiming that her grandfather and father have various aliases, based only on the changed names in the exhibited voter lists. Thus, save and except for the oral statement of the petitioner (DW- 1) and her projected father (DW-2), there is no other proof of shifting of residence of the petitioner’s parental family. In any event, if as per the written statement, the parental family of the petitioner had shifted from village- Monirchar Part-I to village- Helapakhri 11 years prior to the year 2018, as she claims to have been married on attaining age of puberty, the contents of the Page No.# 12/18 Gaon Panchayat Certificate cannot be a proof that the petitioner was married from the said Gaon Panchayat area. Thus, the contents of the said Ext.H must be presumed to be hearsay. 28) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is common for members of the Muslim community in villages to have many names or alias and therefore, citizenship right of the petitioner cannot be taken away just because of certain minor variations in the name of the grandfather and father of the petitioner or because there was shifting of the home of the parents of the petitioner. 29) The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Abdul Matali @ Matalab v. Union of India, 2015 (2) GLT 617. In the said context, it may be stated that this Court, in the case of Basiron Bibi v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 3 GLR 196: 2018 (1) GLT 372; (2017) 0 Supreme(Gau) 1335, having dealt with the case of Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) (supra), held as under:- 29. Reliance placed in the case of Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) (supra), can be of no assistance to the petitioner inasmuch, as it has already been clarified by this Court in previous decisions that the said decision did not lay down any law and was a decision confined to the facts and circumstances of that case. Regarding discrepancies in the voters' lists which the petitioner contended were not her creation being entered into by officials of Election Commission and therefore should not be used adversely against the petitioner, such contention is without any substance. The voters' lists were adduced as evidence by the petitioner herself to prove her case that she was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. Petitioner cannot insist that only that portions of the voters' lists which are in her favour should be accepted and those portions going against her should be over-looked. This is not how a document put forward as a piece of evidence should be examined. The document has to be appreciated as a whole. 30) Thus, the case of Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) (supra) does not Page No.# 13/18 help the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreover, the said case has been distinguished in the case of Basiron Bibi (supra). 31) It would also be appropriate to refer to the case of Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. The State of Assam & Ors., 2024 INSC 511: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 575. In the said case, the Supreme Court of India has held spelling mistakes do occur in the voter lists. The relevant paragraphs 40 to 44 thereof are quoted below:- 40. The initial infirmity of there being nothing on record as regards what grounds or material were actually available with the authorities to question the appellant’s status as to his nationality, is fatal to the projected case. The appellant had obtained documents/certificates from various officers with regard to his/his parents’ continuous presence in India much prior to the date 25.03.1971, which were produced before the Tribunal and have been noted by the Tribunal in its report dated 16.11.2017. Another relevant aspect is the prevalent situation on the ground where uninformed/illiterate persons or persons not being well-informed, in the absence of any requirement to obtain and hold an official document and without possessing property in their own names, would not have any official document issued by the government, State or Central. It is neither difficult nor inconceivable to fathom such scenario amongst the rural populace, including within Assam. 41. The evidence produced before the Tribunal by the appellant to indicate that his parents had been resident in India much prior to 01.01.1966 whereas his siblings and he himself much prior to 25.03.1971, has been disbelieved only on the ground of mismatch of actual English spelling of the names and discrepancy in dates. As far as the discrepancy(ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this. 42. The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the Page No.# 14/18 case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/ vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages viz. English/Hindi/Urdu/ Assamese/Bangla etc. 43. The appellant had produced a document showing that his father and mother had been resident of Village Dolur Pather since 1965; that his sibling had also been declared not to be a foreigner by the Tribunal, and; his elder brother and he were both voters as per the 1985 Electoral Roll relating to 41 Bhabanipur Legislative Assembly Constituency. Further, upon his marriage, the appellant came to Village Kasimpur in District - Nalbari, Assam where his name appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1997 for 61 Dharmapur Legislative Assembly Constituency. 44. From an overall discussion on the report/opinion of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2017, it is clear that there are minor discrepancy(ies) in the appellant’s documents, however their authenticity is not in doubt. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual. 32) Thus, from the herein before quoted paragraph 43 of the case of Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdul Rahim (supra), it is seen that before the Supreme Court of India, the appellant therein had produced a document showing that his father and mother had been resident of Village Dolur Pather since 1965; that his sibling had also been declared not to be a foreigner by the Tribunal, and; his elder brother and he were both voters as per the 1985 Electoral Roll relating to 41 Bhabanipur Legislative Assembly Constituency. Further, upon his marriage, Page No.# 15/18 the appellant came to Village Kasimpur in District - Nalbari, Assam where his name appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1997 for 61 Dharmapur Legislative Assembly Constituency. 33) The certificate issued by the Secretary, 51 No. Baladmari Gaon Panchayat (Ext.H) is rendered inadmissible in evidence because of unauthorized use of State Emblem of Pillar of Asoka. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579, has held as under: “16. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate. If the document and its contents is to be subjected to a thorough search and probe we do not see why the said certificate should have been interdicted by the High Court, particularly, in the context of the facts surrounding the enumeration and inclusion of the documents mentioned in the illustrative list of documents, as noticed above. In fact, the said list of illustrative documents was also laid before this Court in the course of the proceedings held from time to time and this Court was aware of the nature and effect of each of the documents mentioned in the list.” 34) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Sirajul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 5 SCC 534. The said case appears to help the State respondents more. In the said context, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters had submitted that the minor variations in the way the name of a person is spelt can be excused, but in this case, the names of all persons whose names appear in the voter list of 1966 is not available in any other voter list and moreover, the names change in every voter list, for which the petitioner has miserably failed to prove her connection Page No.# 16/18 with her projected parents and grandparents. It would be now appropriate to quote paragraph 3 of the said case, which is extracted below:- “3. We have heard learned counsel for both sides extensively and have gone through the documents produced by the appellant ourselves. On a perusal of the same, we find that a number of documents have been relied upon by the appellant starting with a voters’ list of his grandfather Kematullah in village Sotobashjani. There is no doubt that the great grandfather’s name Amtullah appears as Amtullah throughout the document. Equally, there is no doubt about the father’s name which appears as Hakim Ali throughout. The only discrepancy found is that in some of the documents Kefatullah later becomes Kematullah. However, what is important to note is that his father’s name Amtullah continues as Amtullah and the other family members associated continued as such. Also produced are NRC Registration details of the year 1971 of the grandfather who is noted to be Kefatullah in this document. Other voters lists are then produced where the letter F becomes the letter M with other family names remaining the same. In fact, the appellant has himself produced a document of 1981 from the Income Tax Department giving his Permanent Account Number. Apart from these documents, certain other later documents have also been produced including photo identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India and identity cards issued to his brother including voters lists in which the appellant’s name appears.” 35) In this case in hand, there is no document, other than voter list and oral testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 to show that there are discrepancies in the names of the grandfather and father of the petitioner. In this regard, in the case of Bijoy Das v. Union of India, 2018 (3) GLT 118, cited by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows: “16. It is trite that mere filing of written statement and oral testimony in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 would not be enough. The fact-in-issue would have to be proved by the procedee by adducing documentary evidence which are admissible and relevant. The two documents filed by the petitioner were not proved in any manner whatsoever and therefore the assertion of the petitioner that he being the son of Bipul Das, who was a citizen of India, was therefore a citizen of India was not proved.” 36) Thus, on facts, the petitioner has not been able to make out any Page No.# 17/18 case for interference against the opinion impugned in this writ petition. 37) In the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. V. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733: (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 763, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles on which a writ court can exercise the power to issue writ of certiorari. It would be now appropriate to quote paragraph 17 of the case of Idorjan Bibi @ Iyedijan Bibi w/o Meher Ali v. The Union of India, (2024) 0 Supreme(Gau) 1539, which is extracted below:- “17. In Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das and ors, reported in (2023) SCCOnline SC 996, wherein the Apex Court has expounded the principles on which a writ Court can exercise the writ of certiorari. The Apex Court in this Judgment after examining the precedents in this regard held that there are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. The first cardinal principle is that when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It is not be issued on mere asking. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. The Apex Court held that so far as the errors of law are concerned, a writ of certiorari could be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A mere error of law is not sufficient to attract the writ of certiorari. It must be one which is manifest or patent on the face of the record. Mere formal or technical errors, even of law, are not sufficient, so as to attract a writ of certiorari. Coming to the facts on the present case, in view of the discussions above, we do not find any error of law or lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal while issuing the Page No.# 18/18 impugned order.” 38) Coming to the facts of this present case, in light of the discussions above, the Court does not find that the learned Foreigners Tribunal has committed any error of facts and/or law. This is not a case where the pleadings or evidence has been misread of misconstrued or that the learned Tribunal has considered extraneous materials. The learned Tribunal does not lack jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. 39) Thus, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Interim order passed on 17.12.2021, stands vacated and resultantly, the bail bond, if any, stands discharged. The consequences of the impugned opinion shall follow. 40) The Registry shall return the records back to the concerned learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order so as to make it a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant