Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010029642019 2025:GAU-AS:16909 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1181/2019 SARBHANU BEGUM W/O- LATE AMJAD ALI, VILL- BARKUR, P.S- DALGAON, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784116 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 110001 6:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN- 78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A MATIN,MR. J M SULAIMAN,MRS H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 05.12.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mrs. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, 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 30.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Darrang, Mangaldai in Case No. FT(V) 1169/2016, arising out of SP Enquiry No. NIL, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. Pursuant to order dated 27.02.2019, the records of the Tribunal is received. 4. The learned Tribunal referred to Ext. Nos. 3 to 6 and observed that the petitioner had not examined the Gaonburah of Barkur village, who had issued the Residential Certificate (Ext. 3) or the Gaon Panchayat of Shyampur who had issued the Linkage Certificate (Ext. 4). Though the petitioner had Page No.# 3/7 exhibited the voter ID card of her projected brother (Ext. 5), but she did not produce her brother for cross-examination. The learned Tribunal, on examining the contents of the NRC of 1971 (Ext. 1) and the voter list of 1970, observed that the name of Sukurjan, wife of Mia Hussain, was recorded and further observed that the petitioner had projected Mia Hussain and Sukurjan as her father and mother, but in her evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that the name of her mother is Sukuri Bewa, however, in paragraph-10 of her written statement, the name of her mother is stated to be Sukrujan. Therefore, as the petitioner did not clarify as to what was the actual and correct name of her mother, the evidence of the petitioner, insofar as the name of her mother is concerned, was discarded. 5. The petitioner had relied on the voter list of 1997. However, in the said voter list, the name of Abdul appeared as the husband of the petitioner. However, in her evidence, the petitioner had stated that the name of her husband is Late Amjad Ali, son of Sabed. Therefore, if that was the name of her husband, then who was Abdul, and accordingly, the said document was also discarded. 6. Accordingly, as the statements made in the evidence were not found to corroborate with the exhibits, it was held that the petitioner had failed to establish a linkage with the Indian parent relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be an illegal migrant of the stream of post 25.03.1971. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a strong argument to project that merely because of certain discrepancies in the name of the Page No.# 4/7 petitioner and her projected husband and her mother, the evidence of the petitioner was discarded and she was held to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. It is submitted that there are a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that minor discrepancies in the name of the persons in the voters list would not be a good ground to discard the evidence and to declare the proceedee to be a foreigner. Accordingly, it has been submitted that this is a fit and proper case for remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh adjudication and to decide the matter without being prejudiced by spelling mistakes or difference in the names of the persons in the voters list as it is not the petitioner who had made those entries. 8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and has made its submissions in support of the impugned opinion. 9. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available in the writ petition as well as the records of the learned Tribunal. 10. The petitioner has exhibited 6 (six) documents referred to hereinbefore. There is nothing on record to show that the document which was proved as NRC of 1971 (Ext. 1) was an original document or a certified copy thereof. The petitioner had not taken any steps to call for the original so as to prove Ext.1 or its contents. In respect of Ext. 2, which is a voter identity card and/or electoral voter identity card, the same was exhibited to project that the petitioner was casting vote under No. 68 Dalgaon LAC, however, the said Page No.# 5/7 document is a post 25.03.1971 document and moreover, the voter identity card cannot be accepted as a proof of citizenship. The fact that the petitioner is a citizen of India and not a foreigner is a burden which has to be proved by the petitioner by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. In this regard, it may be stated that the Gaonburah of Barkur village had issued a residential certificate (Ext. 3) in favour of the petitioner and similarly the Gaon Panchayat of Shyampur had issued a linkage certificate in respect of the petitioner, stating therein that the petitioner was the daughter of Late Mia Hussain and wife of late Amjad Ali and the same was marked as Ext.4. However, the petitioner had not produced and examined the Gaonburah and the Gaon Panchayat Secretary to prove Ext.3 and 4. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the said two documents were proved in accordance with law. The petitioner had produced the voter identity card of her projected brother (Ext. 5), however, the petitioner could not produce her brother for his cross-examination and therefore, the statements made in his evidence-on-affidavit is not sufficient to prove that the petitioner is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Accordingly, the evidence tendered by the projected brother of the petitioner is of no value. The petitioner had referred to the acknowledgement of submission of legacy data code before the authorities, using the legacy data of her father, which appeared in the NRC of 1971. The said acknowledgement was proved as Ext.6. However, a mere application of the petitioner for inclusion of a name in NRC would not prove that she is a citizen of India and born to parents who had been in the Country from before 01.01.1966. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was discrepancy in the name of her mother and her husband. However, the observation of the Tribunal cannot be discarded because the petitioner did not make any specific pleading to explain the discrepancy in the name of her Page No.# 6/7 projected mother and her projected husband. The petitioner had not disclosed any document where the alias name of either the mother or the husband was available with other members of the family. 11. In this case, the discrepancy of the name of members of the family would not have been relevant if in all other documents the name of other members of the family remain the same. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has neither disclosed the names of all her family members nor is there any document wherein the names of the entire family stand together. Therefore, the petitioner has picked up a few names and she is attempting to link her with them as her projected parents and brother. However, as no document has been proved in accordance with law to establish that the petitioner is the daughter of Mia Hussain and Sukurjan or Sukuri Bewa and her name does not appear along with her projected parents or projected brother in any document, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal could not be demolished by the petitioner in any respect whatsoever. 12. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner had strongly submitted that the petitioner was a citizen of India, but in the absence of any documentary evidence to link the petitioner to her projected parents, whose presence in the Country is recorded after 01.01.1966, the challenge made in the writ petition fails. 13. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition filed to challenge the impugned opinion dated 30.08.2018 is found to be without any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 14. The consequences of the said opinion dated 30.08.2018, passed by the Page No.# 7/7 learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Darrang, Mangaldai in case number FT(V) 1169/2016, arising out of SP Enquiry No. NIL shall follow. 15. There shall be no order as to cost. 16. The Registry shall return back the records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order to be made a part of record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant