Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010044272026 2026:GAU-AS:10228-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1049/2026 MUSSTT. JAHANARA PARBIN @ JAHANARA BEGUM D/O. LT. HUSSAIN ALI @ LT. MD. HUSAIN ALI, W/O. ABDUL KHALEK, R/O. VILL.- CHIRAKHUNDI, P/S. TAMULPUR, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN-781354 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAKSA ASSAM PIN-7821354 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BAKSA ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 PIN-7821354 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE TAMULPUR POLICE STATION BAKSA PIN-78135 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A A DEWAN, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM,MR ARJU IKBAL Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,GA, ASSAM Linked Case : CS/0/0 MUSSTT JAHANARA PARBIN ALIAS JAHANARA BEGUM ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTEDBY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OFINDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEWDELHI 110001 ------------ Advocate for : KHAIRUL ISLAM Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Page No.# 3/3 FT and Border matters; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this interlocutory application, the applicant, who is the review petitioner in the connected Review Petition No. 2507/2026 (Filing Number), has prayed for condoning the delay of 395 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review petition. 3. Although the reason assigned for condoning the delay is not at all satisfactory, as the issue of citizenship is involved, the Court is of the considered opinion that the matter be heard of merit. However, this order is not intended to be cited as a precedent in any other case as this order has been passed on facts unique to this case. 4. Accordingly, the delay of 395 days beyond the period of limitation is hereby condoned. 5. Registry shall now register the connected review petition and list before the Court immediately thereafter. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant