Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010264562025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7315/2025 MUSSTT. HAJERA KHATUN W/O- MD. TOMSER ALI, D/O- OMAR ALI, VILL- GORAIMARI, P.S.- JOGIGHOPA, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI DELHI- 110001. 4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC) ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781005. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/10 ASSAM PIN-783380. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380. 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE JOGIGHOPA POLICE STATION DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783384 Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Azad Advocate for the respondent No.1 : Mr. B. Sarma, CGC Advocate for respondent No. 2, 4, 6 & 7 : Mr. G. Sarma, SC Advocate for respondent No. 5 : Ms. R.B Bora, Govt. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent No.3 : Ms S. Katakey, SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, J)tr Heard Mr. A.K Azad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt., for the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 & 7; Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent No. 3; Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the respondent No.1 and Ms. R.B Bora, learned State counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner herein, namely Musstt. Hajera Khatun, has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the judgment and opinion dated 05/01/2022 passed by the learned Page No.# 3/10 Member Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2 at Abhayapuri in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No. 707 of 2016, arising out of Reference No. BNGN IM(D)T No. 425 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal, answering the reference made with regard to the petitioner, held that she was not an Indian citizen and that she is a foreigner and illegal migrant who had come into India on or after 25/03/1971. 3. The facts in brief may be narrated herein below: The Superintendent of Police Border, Bongaigaon, vide Reference No. BNGN IM(D)T No. 425 of 2003, had sent a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner, Hajera Khatun, and seeking an opinion regarding her citizenship. Accordingly, the aforementioned FT case was registered and the petitioner as proceedee was noticed, whereupon she appeared and filed a written statement along with photocopies of documents. Subsequently, the proceedings started, during which the petitioner adduced evidence of herself as DW-1 and another person stated to be her maternal uncle as DW-2. In support of her case, the petitioner as proceedee also exhibited 15 documents. However, upon perusing the materials and evidence, the learned Tribunal was not convinced about the case of the petitioner and was pleased to return the opinion, holding her to be a foreigner post the stream of 25/03/1971. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. During the proceedings, as mentioned above, the petitioner filed a written statement claiming that she is not a foreign national and that the reference proceeding should be dismissed. It is stated in the written statement that she is a bona fide Indian citizen by birth and that her father's name was Omar Ali, who was a son of late Ohed Ali, and that her mother's name was Ajiran Nessa. She stated that her date of birth was 15/04/1956. It was stated in the written statement that the parents of the petitioner were enlisted in the NRC of 1966 by Sl. No. 281 and 282 with regard to village Tapattari in Goalpara district at that time. She also stated that the parents of the petitioner were also enlisted in the voters list of 1970 in the Abhayapuri (SC) LAC against Sl.No. 241 and 242. The petitioner stated that she got married with one Tomser Ali of village Goraimari under the jurisdiction of Jogighopa Police Station in the district of Bongaigaon. Her name was enlisted in the voters list of 1989 along with that of her husband. It is stated that in the subsequent years also, her name was enlisted in the voters list along with her husband and other family members. She stated that the Election Commission of India had also issued a voter's ID in her favor mentioning her name as Hajera Khatun, wife of Tomser Ali with ID No.GNK 9735335. She stated that the Office of the SDO Food and Civil Supplies of Abhayapuri also issued an identity card being card No. 0152985 bearing Sl. No. 626 in her name as Hajera Bewa, wife of Tomser Page No.# 4/10 Ali. In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed in the written statement that the reference proceeding be dismissed. 5. In her evidence on affidavit as DW-1, the petitioner indicated her age as 61 years. She stated that the proceeding has been initiated against her purely on suspicion and that it is baseless. She stated that she was born in the year 1956 in the district of Bongaigaon in the village of Tapattari and that her father's name was Omar Ali, son of Ohed Ali and mother's name Ajiran Nessa and that her grandfather's name was Ohed Ali. She testified that her father's name appeared in the voters list of 1966 in the No. 42 Abhayapuri (SC) LAC in the village of Tapattari against Sl. No. 281 and her mother's name was at Sl. No. 282. She exhibited the certified copy of the voters list of 1966 as Exhibit 1. The petitioner further testified that her father's name appeared in the voters list of 1970 in the same LAC against Sl. No. 241 and her mother's name at Sl. No. 242. The said document was exhibited as Exhibit 3. She testified that in 1976 she married Tomser Ali of village Goraimari and her name entered in the voters list for the first time in 1989 in No. 35 Abhayapuri (SC) LAC in village Goraimari as Hajera Khatun, wife of Tomser Ali against Sl. No. 439. She exhibited the certified copy of the same as Exhibit 4. The petitioner further deposed that in 1997 voters list also her name was enlisted along with her husband's first wife and other family members and that her name was enlisted at Sl. No. 84 as Hajera Khatun. She exhibited the relevant document as Exhibit 5. Similarly, her name was enlisted in the voters list of 2006, 2008, 2016 and the relevant documents were exhibited as Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 respectively. She also exhibited a photo electoral card in her name mentioning her name as Hajera Khatun, wife of Tomser Ali. She also exhibited as Exhibit 10 a Ration Card No. 0152985 issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department. She also exhibited as Exhibit 11 a passbook issued in her name mentioning as Hajera Khatun by the Assam Grameen Vikas Bank. 6. DW1 testified that she was an Indian citizen by birth and that has been residing in India since birth. The petitioner as DW1 reiterated that she is a citizen of India by birth and not a foreigner. She also stated that after her marriage she applied for enrolling her name in the voters list but it was not done so and her name appeared in the voters list in 1989. 7. On queries by the Tribunal, DW1 stated that her father's name appeared for the first time in the voters list of 1966 in which her mother's name also appeared. She admitted that her name appeared in the voters list for the first time in 1989. 8. One Abdul Mannan, claiming to be the relative of the petitioner, adduced evidence in her favour as DW2 in which he stated that the petitioner is the daughter of his maternal uncle and that her father's Page No.# 5/10 name is Omar Ali, son of Ohed Ali and that she was born in 1956 at village Tapattari under Abhayapuri Police Station in the district of Bongaigaon. 9. DW2 stated that the petitioner was an Indian citizen by birth. He testified about the petitioner's father figuring in the voters list of 1966 in Abhayapuri LAC as Omar Ali, son of late Ohed Ali i.e. Sl. No. 281 and her mother also was enlisted as Ajiran Nessa against Sl. 282. DW2 also stated that the names of parents of the petitioner figured in the voters list of 1970 in the said LAC. DW2 stated about the marriage of the petitioner with Tomser Ali of village Goraimari and that her name figured in the voters list for the first time in 1989 under No. 35 Abhayapuri (SC) LAC in the village of Goraimari as Hajera Khatun. He also stated about his own name figuring in the voters list in 1997 in the same LAC of village Goraimari under Sl. No. 84 and that in the said list the petitioner's name was recorded as Hajera Khatun, wife of Tomser Ali. Similarly, the petitioner's name was mentioned as Hajera Khatun in the voters list of 2006, 2008 and 2016. DW2 also mentioned about the voters ID card, the ration card and the passbook of Assam Grameen Vikas Bank in the name of the petitioner. He testified that in the voters ID card her name is mentioned as Hajera Khatun and in the bank passbook it is mentioned as Hajera Bewa. 10. DW2 stated that the petitioner is an Indian citizen and her father is also an Indian citizen. To queries by the Tribunal, DW2 stated that the petitioner was born in 1956 and at the time of her deposition her age was 61 years. DW2 stated that the petitioner's father is his maternal uncle. He stated about her name figuring in the voters list in 1989 for the first time. He could not tell the name of the petitioner's mother and also could not say in which year the petitioner's father's name entered in the voters list. 11. Mr. Azad, the learned counsel for the petitioner supporting the case of the petitioner submits that both parents of the petitioner were Indian citizens whose names figured in the voters list of 1966 and 1970 prior to the cutoff date. He further submits that the petitioner's name also figured in the voters list of 1989 and that she has submitted sufficient documentary evidence building a linkage with her Indian citizen ancestors, being parents. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel that despite adducing her testimony and that of her relative as well as exhibiting numerous documents including the voters list of 1966 and 1970 pertaining to her parents - the learned Tribunal incorrectly appreciated the evidence and arrived at an erroneous finding holding her to be a foreign national even though she was an Indian citizen by birth. The learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and declaring the petitioner to be an Indian national. The Page No.# 6/10 learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of Isiran Nessa -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2020(3) GLT 531. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 4 submits that the certificate of the Gaon Panchayat is the only purported linked evidence but the same is not admissible as the mode of proof has been inadequate and none has appeared to testify regarding the veracity and correctness of the contents. 14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent refers to the decision of Khudeja Khatun -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2018 (3) GLT 347 and the decision in Nur Begum -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2020 (3 ) GLT 347. 15. We have perused the pleadings of the writ petition, the evidence and documents adduced during the proceeding and considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the decisions cited at the Bar. 16. In her written statement, as well as evidence adduced during the proceeding, the petitioner claims to be the daughter of Omar Ali, son of Ohed Ali, and her mother's name is stated to be Ajiran Nessa. In support of the contention, the petitioner has exhibited as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 the documents by way of Voter's List of 1966, NRC 1966 and 1970 of Abhayapuri LAC No. 42. 17. Upon perusing these documents, we find that the name of Omar Ali, son of Ohed Ali, appears at Serial No. 241 and the name of Ajiran Nessa, indicated as his wife, appearing at Serial No. 242. Similarly, in the Voter's List of 1970 of the constituency, the names of Omar Ali and Ajiran Nessa appear. There is no discrepancy with regard to their names and the name of Omar Ali's father, indicated as Ohed Ali. With regard to Ajiran Nessa also, in both the Voter's Lists, her husband's name is indicated as Omar Ali. Therefore, from these Voter's Lists, it can be deduced, prima facie, that the aforementioned Omar Ali and Ajiran Nessa were Indian citizens prior to the cut-off date, as these documents indicate their presence in India and Assam prior to the cut-off date of 1971. As mentioned above, the petitioner claims to be the daughter of Omar Ali and Ajiran Nessa and during the proceeding, she attempted to build a linkage with these two persons, projected as her parents. It's a different matter that, the learned Tribunal, held that she failed to create the linkage with these persons and her documentary and oral evidence was not found to be sufficient to hold that she had discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 18. Now, the next crucial document for the petitioner is the Voter's List of 1989, which has been Page No.# 7/10 exhibited as Exhibit 4. In this, her name is mentioned as Hajira Khatun, wife of Tomser Ali against Serial No. 439, with regard to No. 35, Abhayapuri South (SC) LAC. From the evidence adduced by the petitioner, she had stated that she was married to Tomser Ali and her name is stated to have appeared for the first time in the Voter's List of 1989 along with her husband. It may be mentioned herein that, apart from claiming that the petitioner was an Indian citizen by birth, she stated that her date of birth is 15/04/1956. 19. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent side that, for a person born in 1956 and who became eligible to vote around 1976, her name appeared for the first time about 10 years after her voting eligibility. Nevertheless, leaving aside that aspect for the moment, we go back to the Voter's List of 1989. In the said voter's list, the name of Hajira Khatun is shown with regard to Tomser Ali, stated to be her husband, and the names of her projected parents, Omar Ali and Ajiran Nessa, nowhere appears in the said voter's list alongside her name. 20. The learned Tribunal also found that in the report of the inquiry officer and the records of the reference, the name of the petitioner's father has been mentioned as late Muhammad Ali, and the learned Tribunal has rightly stated that nowhere in the written statement or the evidence, the petitioner has stated that Muhammad Ali is the same person as Omar Ali, whom she is claiming as the projected father. In any case, this aspect becomes somewhat secondary, as in the Voter's List of 1989, exhibited as Exhibit 4, the names of her projected parents do not appear along with the name of the petitioner. 21. In support of her case, the Gaon Burah Certificate (Exhibit 11b), submitted by the petitioner side, was not accepted by the Tribunal as the author of the document did not adduce evidence to prove the veracity of the document and its contents thereof. There can be no quarrel with such appreciation of evidence. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of Khudeja Khatun -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2018(3) GLT 347 and the relevant paragraph-15.1 is reproduced herein below: “15.1. Firstly, this document does not appear to be a genuine document inasmuch as a Gaon Panchayat is not a department of the Govt. of Assam. Therefore, Gaon Panchayat is not authorised to use a letter head with “Govt. of Assam” printed therein. Secondly, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat did not testify before the Tribunal alongwith the evidence on the basis of which Ext. D certificate was issued to prove the certificate as well as the contents thereof. Therefore, this certificate was not proved. Thirdly, Supreme Court has clarified in Rupjan Begum Vs Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, that such a certificate of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary is by no means proof of citizenship. Page No.# 8/10 Such a certificate has to be verified at two stages. At the first stage, authenticity of the certificate itself is required to be verified to find out as to whether it is genuine or not. The second stage of verification relates to verification of the contents. There is nothing on record to show that Ext. D had undergone any such verification exercise. Therefore, Ext. D cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence.” 22. Similarly, a PAN card of the petitioner exhibited as Exhibit C, and an EPIC Voter's Identity card exhibited as Exhibit 11a were also discarded by the Tribunal. It is well settled that these documents are not sufficient in a standalone manner in proof of citizenship. At best, they can be corroborative evidence to other more cogent documentary evidence to build linkage with Indian citizen ancestors of a proceedee. 23. With regard to the aspect of these documents not being sufficient standalone evidence regarding citizenship, a reference may be made to the decision in Jabeda Begum -versus- Union of India, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4895 : (2021) 1 Gau LR 5. The relevant paragraph-8 is reproduced herein below: “8. This court in Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India WP(C) No. 3547/2016, has already held that PAN Card and Bank documents are not proof of citizenship.” Reference may also be made to Md. Babul Islam -versus- State of Assam & Others passed in WP(C) No. 3547/2016 (2018:Gau-AS:7084-DB) and the relevant paragraph-20.2 reproduced herein below: “20.2. In so far Exhibit-7 Elector Photo Identity Card is concerned, besides not being proved, it is a post 25.03.1971 document. Besides, merely producing such an identity card in the absence of supporting evidence would not be proof of citizenship.” 24. The oral testimony of DW2, stated to be the petitioner's maternal uncle, would not also be sufficient to show her linkage with the projected parents. It has been clearly held in the case of Nur Begum (supra), that in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act and Foreigners Tribunals Order 1964, the evidentiary value of oral evidence without the support of documentary evidence is wholly insignificant, and oral testimony alone is not proof of citizenship. The relevant paragraph-6 may be reproduced herein below: “6. The statement of DW-2 i.e. Jahurun Begum, who claimed to be the Page No.# 9/10 mother of the petitioner, cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents showing her relationship, either to the projected grandfather, father or to the petitioner herself. Oral testimony of DW-2 alone, sans any documentary support, cannot be treated as sufficient to prove linkage or help the cause of the petitioner. Surprisingly, the petitioner failed to produce a single voter list in her name even until the age of 50 years. We would reiterate that in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 the evidentiary value of oral testimony, without support of documentary evidence, is wholly insignificant. Oral testimony alone is no proof of citizenship. The evidence of DW-2, thus, falls short of being considered as cogent, reliable and admissible evidence, so much so, to establish linkage of the petitioner to the projected grandfather, grandmother and father. The petitioner utterly failed to prove her linkage to Indian parents relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971 through cogent, reliable and admissible documents.” (emphasis supplied) 25. We find that starting from the voters list of 1989, the subsequent voters list of 1997, 2006, 2008, and 2016 mentions her name in connection with Tomser Ali, stated to be her husband. Even in her PAN card, which in any case is not a standalone documentary evidence regarding citizenship - only her husband's name is mentioned. 26. With regard to the bank documents submitted by her, exhibited as Exhibit 11, her name is mentioned as Hajera Bewa rather than Hajira Khatun and here again, her husband Tamacher Ali is mentioned rather than her projected father. Even in the Gaon certificate, she is mentioned as having got married to Tamacher Ali of village Goraimari. 27. In the PAN card, however, her father's name is mentioned as Omar Ali. But as already discussed, the said document is not a standalone document at all in support of citizenship. 28. Thus, upon perusing the materials, we are unable to find any documentary evidence to connect the petitioner to her projected parents, Omar Ali and Ajiran Nessa, whose names appeared in the Voters List of 1966 and 1970 prior to the cutoff date. 29. We do not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and the reasons given for discarding the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. 30. Consequently, we opine that there is no infirmity in the impugned opinion. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and opinion dated 05/01/2022, rendered by the learned Member of the Foreigners Tribunal, No. 2, Abhayapuri, Bongaigaon, in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No. 707 of 2016, arising out of Reference No. BNGN IM(D)T No. 425 of 2003, is hereby upheld and confirmed. Page No.# 10/10 31. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. 32. Interim order stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant