Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010238812025 2025:GAU-AS:15055 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6267/2025 ABDUL KADIR SON OF ICHAB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LANG TANG GAON, P.S. SAMAGURI, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM PIN- 782136 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POLITICAL AND HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN BHABAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006 5:THE ELCTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER KALIABOR SUB-DIVISION DISTRICT NAGAON Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER CUM ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON PO AND DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON PO NAGAON DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM PIN 78200 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. G Borah Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. AI Ali, 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 07.11.2025 Heard Ms. G Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. AI Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. J Payeng, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 7. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Page No.# 3/3 continuation of the name of his father as a ‘D’ voter in the voters list since 2013. 3. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father had expired on 12.04.2015. Under such circumstances, the question of proceeding against a dead person is not envisaged under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 4. This Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is a ‘D’ voter. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not a ‘D’ voter. 5. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is of the opinion that no direction can be passed in the writ petition as has been sought for. Accordingly the writ petition stands closed. 6. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that merely because the father of the petitioner has been marked as a ‘D’ voter in the voters list of the year 2013, the same shall not prejudice the petitioner, who is the son without following the procedure established under the law. 7. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant