Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010132552025 2025:GAU-AS:14533-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3530/2025 MD JAHIR ALI @ JUHIR S/O MD. JALIL ALI @ MD. JALIL, VILL- AMARI BARI (REVENUE VILLAGE- BHERBHERI), P.O.- AMARI BARI, P.S.- RANGAPARA, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, INDIA, PIN-784101 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 4:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 5:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM GUWAHATI-781005 Page No.# 2/7 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) SONITPUR TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, B BARMAN,J M SULAIMAN,MR. H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 28.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, 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 has assailed the impugned opinion dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 7th, Tezpur, Balipara, in Case No. FTDC 1013/16, arising out of Ref No. TZP.(B)/2001/1562 Dtd. 20.08.99, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and filed his written statement on 15.07.2022, claiming that Page No.# 3/7 his father, namely, Md. Jalil Ali, a resident of Bihar, abandoned the petitioner and his mother when he was just after 1 (one) month of birth. As his father is untraceable, the petitioner has been residing with his mother and maternal grandparents at Bherbheri (Amaribari) in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. The petitioner has stated that his maternal grandfather is Late Ruhul Amin @ Ruhula Min, who had cast his vote in the year 1960 under Balipara LAC and has a legacy data in respect of the voter list of 1960. His maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother, Late Aisha Khatun @ Aisha Begum had cast their vote in the year 1965/1966 from No.78 Balipara LAC. He also claims that his maternal grandparents, maternal uncle, Amir Hussain and mother, Firoja had cast their votes in the year 1979. His maternal grandfather died in the year 1990. The name of the petitioner’s grandmother, uncle, Sans Ali, mother, uncle, Idrish Ali, and his own name appeared in the voter list of 1997 of 74 Rangapara LAC and they had cast their vote in the year 1997. The name of petitioner’s grandmother, mother, uncle, Idrish Ali, aunt, Parbina Begum, and uncle, Chanwach Ali appears in the voter list of 2009 and they had cast their votes in the year 2009. The petitioner claims that Ruhul Amin, Ruhan Arir, Ruhan Amin and Ruhula Min are the names of his maternal grandfather. Accordingly, it has been stated that the petitioner is not a foreigner. 4. In support of his defence, the petitioner has examined himself as DW- 1 and due to inordinate delay, his prayer to call his projected mother as DW-2 was rejected. The petitioner had exhibited the following documents, Birth Certificate issued on 21.04.2017 (Ext.A), School Certificate dated 15.09.1997 (Ext.B), certified copy of voter list of 1960 (Ext.C), certified copy of voter list of 1965/66 (Ext.D), certified copy of voter list of 1971 (Ext.E), certified copy of voter list of 1979 (Ext.F), certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.G), certified Page No.# 4/7 copy of voter list of 2013 (Ext.H), certified copy of voter list of 2021 (Ext.I). 5. The learned Tribunal by the impugned opinion dated 09.02.2024, discarded the exhibited documents and held the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. The learned Tribunal had observed in its opinion that the family details of the petitioner are as follows, viz. Parents-Jalil Ali and Firoja; maternal grandparents- Late Ruhul Amin @ Ruhula Min and Aisha Khatun @ Aisha Begum; uncles- Sans Ali, Idrish Ali, Chanwach Ali; aunt- Parbin. The birth certificate (Ext.A) was rejected being a private document and not proved by calling the issuing authority and by referring to the case of LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, held the document to be not proved and held that the contents of the document was under doubt. For the same reason, Ext.B, the School Certificate was discarded by holding that there is a great chance that the petitioner might have migrated into Assam, India with his parents. Moreover, the learned Tribunal had observed that although the date of birth was mentioned in the birth certificate, but the place of birth was not mentioned. The electoral roll/voters list for the year 1960 (Ext.C), electoral roll of 1965/66 (Ext.D), and electoral roll of 1971 (Ext.E) were discarded for four reasons- (i) number of LAC is not mentioned in the voter list of 1960 (Ext.A); (ii) the house number is different in each voters list, for which there is no explanation; (iii) Ext.E is not a fully certified copy as the date of application, date for notify requisite stamp and folios do not exist; and (iv) some discrepancies were there regarding the age of maternal grandparents as because if the voters list of 1960 is presumed to be true, then their age ought to have been 40 and 32, and 46 and 38 in the year 1971, but their ages are recorded as 38 and 30 in the year 1965 and 42 and 34 in the year 1971. Ext. Nos. F, G, H, and I were discarded in post 1971 document. Resultantly, it was Page No.# 5/7 held that the documents failed to establish the citizenship status of the petitioner and accordingly, he was declared to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 6. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters, which is supported by the learned standing counsel for the ECI and the learned Govt. Advocate and the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Considering that the certified copy of electoral roll were exhibited by the petitioner, the non-containing of the serial number of the Legislative Assembly Constituency is apparently not on account of any action of the petitioner, but would be an omission on part of the concerned authorities, who are issuing the certified copies of the electoral rolls. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters as well as the Election Commission of India have not been able to satisfy the Court that it is mandatory that all the voters list contain the same house number. The enumeration process for entering the names in the electoral roll is conducted under the authority of the Election Commission of India and it is in the public domain the enumerators while doing house to house enquiry, provide the house numbers and therefore, it is most likely that the house numbers may be different in different period of time. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters, Govt. Advocate, as well as the learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India have not been able to outrightly deny that Ext.E is not a certified copy. Therefore, if certain columns prescribed for issuing certified copy have not been filled up, would not make the voter list inadmissible in evidence. In this regard, the Court is not expressing any final opinion on the admissibility or otherwise of any exhibits. Page No.# 6/7 8. The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has rightly submitted that manner and mode of proof and proof of contents of documents are two different aspects. 9. Resultantly, discarding of the documentary evidence, specifically Ext.A to Ext.E is not found sustainable. 10. Resultantly, the impugned opinion dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 7th, Tezpur, Balipara, in Case No. FTDC 1013/16 is found to be vitiated for discarding Ext.A to Ext.E in a manner which is indicated in paragraph-6 of the impugned opinion. Under the circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to call for the concerned officials to prove Ext.A to Ext.E in such manner as the petitioner may be so advised. 11. Resultantly, the said impugned opinion dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 7th, Tezpur, Balipara, in Case No. FTDC 1013/16 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to call for the official witnesses for proving Ext.A to Ext.E in such manner as the petitioner may be so advised. 12. The petitioner, who is represented by his learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 7th, Tezpur, Balipara within an outer period of 30 days from the date of this order and by producing a certified copy of this order, take such steps as the petitioner may be so advised. 13. In the event the petitioner does not appear within the time prescribed, Page No.# 7/7 it would be open for the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and decide the matter in accordance with law. 14. This order is passed under facts unique in this case. Accordingly, this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. 15. Registry shall send back the records expeditiously to the concerned learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant