Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010048172025 2025:GAU-AS:4894- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1357/2025 SAMARTA BHANU WIFE OF ASAB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAMARIGURI, P.O.- GOBARDHANA, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM. PIN- 781315. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS REPRESENTED BY THE STATE COORDINATOR Page No.# 2/5 ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 23.04.2025 (K.R. Surana, J Heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for FT matters. Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel for ECI, and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. We have refused to hear him as he has not perused the learned Tribunal’s records before addressing the Court. Therefore, the matter has been heard without his assistance. Page No.# 3/5 3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 06.03.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta (11th), Assam in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1821/2017 in P.E. No. IM(D)T Case No. 10770/98, declaring the petitioner as a foreigner who has entered India illegally after 25.03.1971. 4. On perusal of the records of the learned Tribunal we have observed that on 17.02.2022, the written statement was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several dates. The petitioner was present before the learned Tribunal on 01.08.2022, and on the said date the petitioner was examined orally for recording her evidence and she was cross-examined by the learned AGP. On refusal of the petitioner to examine any more witnesses, the case was fixed for argument on 05.08.2022 and thereafter, the final opinion was pronounced after a gap of seven months on 06.03.2023. 5. Upon perusal of the oral evidence of DW-1 (petitioner) recorded on 01.08.2022, it is seen that the petitioner has not exhibited any documentary evidence and no document has been marked as exhibit. Moreover, the order dated 01.08.2022 also does not reflect the marking of any document as exhibit. In the written statement filed on 17.02.2022, the petitioner has annexed 3 (three) documents, being (i) the certified copy of voters list of 1965 (Annexure- 1), (ii) the certified copy of voters list of 1970 (Annexure-2) and (iii) certified copy of voters list of 1989 (Annexure-3). 6. The records further reveal that the learned Member had marked 4 (four) documents as exhibits, i.e., (i) certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1965 (Exhibit-1) (ii) certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1970 (Exhibit-2), (iii) identity card of the petitioner issued by the concerned GaonBurah (Exhibit-3) and (iv) certificate Page No.# 4/5 issued by the Secretary, 46 No. Nichuka Gaon Panchayat (Exhibit-4). It may also be mentioned that is the photocopy of Electoral Roll of 1989 which is available at page-26 of the learned Tribunal’s records, there is an endorsement by the learned Tribunal stating that it is a photocopy and not considered Moreover, there is no order in the order sheet as to how those documentary exhibits was introduced by the petitioner as DW-1. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is constrained to observe that the due procedure for recording of evidence has not been followed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta (11th), Assam. 8. Accordingly, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned opinion 06.03.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta (11th), Assam in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1821/2017 in P.E. No. IM(D)T Case No. 10770/98. However, as the issue of citizenship is involved in the present writ petition, the matter is remanded back for a fresh decision by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta (11th), Assam by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to either file her evidence-on-affidavit or the learned Tribunal may also record the oral evidence of the petitioner afresh by allowing the petitioner to exhibit her documents. Thereafter, a fresh opinion shall be passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta (11th), Assam, at Sorbhog in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the court is inclined to direct the petitioner, namely, Samarta Bhanu, who is duly represented herein by her learned counsel, to appear before the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta (11th), Assam at Sorbhog within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order, and by producing a certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall await for an appropriate order from the said Page No.# 5/5 learned Tribunal. 10. It is provided that in the event, if the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it will be open to the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and it would be permissible for the said learned Tribunal to pass an ex parte opinion based on the materials available on record. 11. The Registry shall send back the learned Tribunal’s records expeditiously along with a downloaded copy of this order for making it a part of the record. 12. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant