Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010274202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7145/2025 ABDUL SALAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and othrs REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN ,NEW DELHI-01, 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 4:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER O/O THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 6:The Superintendent of Police (B) Nagaon Assam PIN 78200 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY, M ALAMGEER Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 11-03-2026 Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home and FT matters for the respondent no. 2; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2. On the oral prayer of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, which is also agreed to by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Superintendent of Police [Border], Nagaon is impleaded as party-respondent no. 6 in the instant writ petition. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner shall file an amended Cause-Title before the Registry during the course of the day so as to enable the Registry to make the necessary corrections in the Cause-Title as well as in the CIS. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition stating inter alia that he is a permanent resident of Village – No. 1 Baralimari, Police Station – Juria, District – Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner has claimed that Page No.# 3/4 the name of his grandfather appeared in the Voters List of 1965. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner’s father also appeared in the Voters List from 1977 onwards. The name of the petitioner also appeared in the Voters List from 2005 onwards along with his family members in respect of 83 No. Dhing Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC]. However, since 2011, the petitioner was marked as ‘D’ Voter in the Voters List. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 4 for removal of ‘D’ voter tag marked against his name. 5. With a projection that the respondent authorities had failed to do the needful, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction that the ‘D’ Voter tagged with the name of the petitioner in the Voters List be removed. 6. 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 embark on a fact finding exercise to decide such a question which depends on the evidence that may be produced. 7. In such circumstances, this Court therefore directs the Superintendent of Police [Border], Nagaon 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 Superintendent of Police [Border], Nagaon to refer the case of the petitioner as regards the mark ‘D’ in the Voters List in respect to 83 No. Dhing LAC to a competent Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon district for an appropriate adjudication as regards the status of the petitioner as ‘D’ Voter in Page No.# 4/4 the concerned Voters List. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. With the above directions and observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant