Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010214512025 2025:GAU-AS:13005 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5529/2025 MANJILA KHATUN @ MANJILA BIBI W/O KHOIMUDDIN HOQUE, D/O ABDUL MOZID, VILL HALDIBARI PART-II, P.O GAURNAGAR, P.S LAKHIPUR, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NIRVACHAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI-1. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER GOALPARA ASSAM. PIN- 783101. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) GOALPARA Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM. PIN-78310 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Ali Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. K Gogoi, CGC Ms. P Barua Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India Mr. J Payeng, Standing Counsel, NRC B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19.09.2025 Heard Mr. M Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, the learned CGC for respondent Nos.1, Ms. P Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Mr. J Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel NRC, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the voters list of 2005, the name of the petitioner was marked with the letter “D” and thereupon Page No.# 3/4 the petitioner has approached the concerned respondent authorities for removal of the tag “D” in her name from the voters list. 3. As the concerned respondent authorities had failed to do so, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction that the letter “D” tagged with the name of the petitioner in the voters list be removed. 4. Whether a person is a “D” voter or not is a matter of factual determination and the appropriate forum to do the same is the concerned Foreigners Tribunal. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not have the competence to decide such a question which depends on the evidence that may be produced. 5. In the circumstances, this Court, therefore, directs the respondent No.6 i.e., the Superintendent of Police (Border) Goalpara to verify as to whether the petitioner has already been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal and if upon verification, it is found that the petitioner has not been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, this Court further directs the said respondent No.6 to refer the case of the petitioner as regards the mark “D” in the voters list in respect to 39 No. Jaleswar LAC to a competent Foreigners Tribunal, in the Page No.# 4/4 Goalpara district for an appropriate adjudication as regards the status of the petitioner as “D” voter in the concerned voters list. 6. Reference be made within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such reference being made, the petitioner may participate in such proceedings and establish her case. 7. If the case of the petitioner as per the records had already been referred to the relevant Foreigners Tribunal there would be no requirement to make any further reference and the detailed information of the earlier reference be communicated to the petitioner. 8. With the above directions and observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant