Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010238702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6378/2025 MUSTT KULSUM BIBI D/O. LATE AMJAD ALI,W/O. MD ABDUL MATLEB,VILLAGE BHERGAON,P.O. AND P.S. THELAMARA,DISTRICT SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS THROUGH -THE SECRETARY,TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH -THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHA 6. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THECHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONEROF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADANASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110 001 4:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OFCITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAH 781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/8 SONITPUR P.O. TEZPURDISTRICT SONITPUR ASSAM.PIN CODE 784001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) SONITPUR P.O. TEZPURDISTRICT SONITPUR ASSA.PIN CODE 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M MEDHI, MD. I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 17.12.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.3; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC, for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Kulsum Bibi, has assailed the opinion dated 20.02.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.8, Tezpur in FT(8) Case No. 1822/2017 [arising out of Ref. TZP(B) F.T. Case No. 815/08], by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who has entered Assam illegally on or after 25.03.1971. Page No.# 3/8 3) The hereinbefore referred case was registered upon reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Tezpur. The notice of the proceeding was served on the petitioner and she had appeared in the matter and contested the case and exhibited the following documents, viz., voters list of 1966 (Ext.A); voters list of 1971 (Ext.B); jamabandi copy (Ext.C); voters list of 1993 (Ext.D); Gaonburah certificate (Ext.E). 4) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the proceedee, in her written statement, claimed to be a citizen of India by birth and stated that she was born and brought up at village Baligaon Bongali, P.S. Thelamara, District Sonitpur, in the year 1960. Her father was Amjat Ali Seikh and he originally resided at the said place and cast his vote in the year 1966 under 76-Missamari L.A.C and in the year 1971 under 71- Dhekiajuli L.A.C. She got married with Md. Abdul Mataleb of village Bhergaon, P.S. Thelamara. 5) In her evidence-in-chief on affidavit, the OP as D.W.1. stated more or less the same thing as stated by her in the written statement. In cross examination, she stated that she was born at Baligaon Bangali in the year 1960 and her father, Late Amjad Ali was born at Baligaon Bangail and died in the year 1977 at the same place. Her mother was Late Raymon Khatun. She got married to Abdul Motalib of Bhergaon in the year 1979 and no foreigners case was initiated or is pending against any members of his parental family. 6) The petitioner had examined Bulam Kurmi, Govt. Gaonburah as DW-2 and Smt. Jaba Noeg, Senior Assistant, Election Office, Tezpur as DW-3. 7) The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence, found that the existence of Ajmat Ali Seikh in the voters list of 1966 (Ext.A) and 1971 (Ext.B), as voter of 71- Dhekiajuli L.A.C from village- Baligaon Bengali. However, Page No.# 4/8 though the petitioner had exhibited the voter list of 1993, containing her name, it connected her with her husband’s family and not with her father and it was a post 25.03.1971 document. The Gaonburah certificate (Ext.E) was discarded as the DW-2 had not proved himself to be the Gaonburah and the DW-2 had not produced any register to prove Ext.E and moreover, the DW-2 in his cross- examination had admitted that he was not the writer of Ext.E, but he had only signed it. It was also held that the petitioner had stated that she was born in Baligaon Bangali, but could not prove the same by any document. 8) Be it stated that the jamabandi (Ext.C,) which is a land revenue record, shows land held in the name of the petitioner’s father, who as per the statement of the petitioner in her cross-examination, had died in the year 1977 and therefore, does not link name to her projected father. 9) Though the contested opinion was passed on 20.02.2020, the present writ petition has 27.10.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on delay and laches. 10) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the statements made in paragraph 11, has submitted that the opinion was rendered during Covid-19 period, which was a period when the petitioner and her family members had suffered immensely, both financially and healthwise. Moreover, due to ignorance, the petitioner was unaware of the consequences that are likely to arise because of the adverse opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal. Thus, after the petitioner was advised to assail the said opinion, the petitioner had arranged the necessary means to assail the impugned opinion. 11) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that, as the petitioner has all the relevant documents to prove that she is a citizen of India Page No.# 5/8 but the learned Foreigners Tribunal did not appreciate the documents in proper perspective. It has been submitted that, if opportunity of hearing is not granted to the petitioner, she would suffer great injustice and her valuable citizenship right would be irreversibly lost forever. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available to her. 12) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had opposed this writ petition on ground of delay and laches. 13) In this case, the opinion was rendered on 20.02.2020 and the present writ petition has been filed on 27.10.2025, i.e., after a lapse of 5 years, 8 months, 7 days, or 2067 days. Notwithstanding that the opinion was rendered before Covid-19 lockdown, but the petitioner has not given any explanation what steps she had taken after Covid-19 pandemic situation had ceased to exist. The vague statement of the petitioner is only to the effect that she was ignorant of the consequences. Such a vague explanation to cover up delay and laches cannot be accepted as a good and cogent explanation for the delay and laches. 14) The petitioner has disclosed the names of her deceased grandfather and parents. She has also disclosed the name of her husband. However, the petitioner has not disclosed about the particulars of four other voters whose names appear in the voters list of 1997 and what had happened to them. It also appears that one A. Hasim, whose name appears in the voters list of 1997, is related to the petitioner as her son. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was not informed about the impugned opinion after it was pronounced. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn in this case is that despite having knowledge of the impugned opinion, she willfully and deliberately neglected to assail the same within a reasonable time. Page No.# 6/8 15) This Court, in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India, (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, had held to the effect that the plea of compliance of the principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners. Similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813. 16) The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In paragraph 63, the Supreme Court of India had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. 17) It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that though the opinion was rendered on 20.02.2020, the petitioner has remained silent for 5 years, 8 months, 7 days, or 2067 days after passing of the impugned opinion. It is only after the petitioner apprehended arrest, she has awakened from his deep slumber to assail the said by filing this writ petition on 27.10.2025. Page No.# 7/8 18) In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2-25 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme(SC) 1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court, when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion. 19) A very vague statement by the petitioner that she was ignorant about the consequences cannot be accepted as a good, cogent and acceptable explanation to entertain this writ petition when cause of action to file this writ petition arose on 20.02.2020, when the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner and she was, at that point of time, not suffering any immediate legal or other disability to assail the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the pronouncement of the opinion and similarly, it is not the petitioner’s case that her engaged counsel did not inform him about the impugned opinion. It is also not her case that none of the family members suffered with such disabilities which prevented them to visit the learned counsel for the petitioner to enquire about the fate of her case. 20) Therefore, the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent in assailing the impugned order. Moreover, she is deemed to be aware of the impugned opinion. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed on the ground of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of about 5 years, 8 months, 7 days, or 2067 days in assailing the impugned opinion. Page No.# 8/8 21) Hence, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, which has not been properly explained. 22) There shall be no order as to cost. 23) The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of the record of the concerned learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant