Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010015092017 2026:GAU- AS:10484-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1389/2017 SUKARAN NESSA D/O LT. JINNAT ALI W/O MD. SULEMAN ALI R/O VILL- DHARMAPUR P.S. SORBHOG MOUZA- RUPSHI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 781301 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 781301 5:THE DISTRICT ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER 44 JANIA LAC Page No.# 2/8 BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S CHAKRABORTY, MR.S A AHMED,MS.M GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 28.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 07.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 8th, Barpeta, in FT Case No. 351/2015, arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 350/04, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. On service of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal, and on 01.06.2016, she had filed her written statement, inter alia, stating that there was no cause of action for the proceedings, the case could not be tried in its present form, and the police report was vague and false because, at the time of inquiry, no police officer had asked the petitioner regarding her entry into India. Page No.# 3/8 4. The petitioner claimed to have been born at village Abadi, P.O. Chakihali, P.S. Manikpur, in the district of Bongaigaon, where she grew up. She got married to Soleman Ali of village Dharmapur, Mouza Rupsi, P.S. Sorbhog, in the district of Barpeta, and she has been living there. 5. The petitioner stated that her actual and correct name is Sukuron Nessa, which has been written in all the relevant documents, but in the notice of this case, her name was written as Sukran Nessa. Therefore, both names refer to one and the same person. 6. She stated that the name of her father appeared in the NRC of 1951, and her own name appeared in the voters' list of 1997 and 2010 at village Dharmapur. The petitioner has an EPIC issued by the Election Commission of India. She also has a linkage certificate issued by the Secretary of Jhawbari Gaon Panchayat and a certificate from the Gaonburah of village Dharmapur. 7. In support of her defence, the petitioner examined herself as DW-1, and she also examined one Innas Ali, her projected brother, as DW-2. 8. In her evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner reiterated the statements made in her written statement and exhibited the following documents: i. Certified copy of the NRC of 1951 (Ext. A). ii. Certified copy of the voters' list of 1997 (Ext. B). iii. Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) (Ext. C). iv. Linkage certificate of the Panchayat Secretary (Ext. D). v. Gaonburah certificate (Ext. E). 9. In her cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that she had cast her vote for the first time in the year 1997, and that she has been voting till date. She could not say when her father had expired, and she could not say why the name of her father or her mother did not appear in any voters' list. She Page No.# 4/8 stated that the age of her mother was approximately, or nearly, 100 years. She denied that she had given false evidence. 10. Innas Ali, who was examined as DW-2, also stated that the petitioner was his younger sister, aged about 42 years, and that she was born at village Abadi. He reiterated the statements made by the petitioner in her evidence-on- affidavit. He exhibited the following two documents: i. Certified copy of the voters' list of 1997 (Ext. F). ii. His EPIC (Ext. G). 11. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that he resides at Abadigaon, but his birth took place at Madar Char. After river erosion, he shifted to Abadigaon. He does not remember when he voted for the first time. He is casting his vote till date, the names of his mother and father had appeared in the voter list of 1966/1965. However, their names do not appear in the voter list of 1970. It may be stated that although DW-2, in his cross examination has stated that he had submitted a copy of NRC 1951, but the same was not found to be borne by record as the document marked as Ext.A, which is the NRC of 1951 was exhibited by the petitioner as DW-1. He does not have any uncle or brother. He had submitted that the petitioner is his sister and the name of his mother is Aziron Nessa. He had stated that he did not apply for the correction of the name of his father and grandfather in the voter list. He had denied that he has given any false evidence. 12. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the pleadings in the written statement and the evidence tendered by DW-1 and DW-2, discarded the NRC of 1951 (Ext.A), as there was no authenticity to the said document. 13. Moreover, the other documents exhibited by the petitioner do not Page No.# 5/8 satisfy the onus of proof that the petitioner is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of the post- 25.03.1971 stream. 14. The learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. In support of his submission that there cannot be any variance between the pleadings and the evidence, he submitted that the same has been held to be impermissible in the decision of this Court in the case of Momin Ali v. Union of India, 2017 (2) GLT 1076. 15. In support of his submission that the Panchayat certificate was inadmissible, as it was issued on the basis of evidence placed before the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, reliance has been placed on the case of Khudeja Khatoon v. Union of India, 2018 (3) GLT 347. 16. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Gaonburah certificate and the Gaon Panchayat certificate do not have any evidentiary value. 17. Considered the submissions and the cases cited at the Bar, and also perused the Tribunal's records, which were called for. 18. In this case, the petitioner relies on the NRC of 1951 (Ext. A), wherein the name of the village is shown as Kasem Mondalor Gaon. There is no statement in her written statement regarding the shifting of her parents from Kasem Mondalor Gaon to village Abadi. This would be relevant because the Secretary of the Jhawbari Gaon Panchayat, in his certificate (Ext. D), referred to the father and mother of the petitioner as residents of village Abadi. 19. Moreover, the said Panchayat certificate (Ext. D), as well as the Gaonburah certificate (Ext. E), do not have any evidentiary value because of the unauthorized use of the State Emblem, namely, the Lion Capital of Ashoka. In Page No.# 6/8 respect of the admissibility of documents containing unauthorized use of the State Emblem, one may refer to the case of Sajeda Khatun v. Union of India, 2018 (4) GLT 696. 20. In so far as the voters' list of 2010 (Ext. B) is concerned, the same is projected to be the voters' list containing the name of the petitioner along with her husband and other members of her husband's family. The same does not link the petitioner to her projected father, whose name is purportedly shown to appear in the NRC of 1951. Similarly, the EPIC of the petitioner (Ext. C) is not a document which links the petitioner to her projected parents. The projected brother of the petitioner, namely, Innas Ali, had exhibited the voters' list of 1997 (Ext. F) and his EPIC (Ext. G). 21. For this purpose, in paragraph 11 of his evidence-on-affidavit, DW-2 has stated that his name appears in the voters' list of 1997 under 34 No. Abhayapuri North LAC, vide serial No. 505, House No. 11, Part No. 35, of village-55, Abadigaon, P.S. Manikpur, in the district of Bongaigaon, Assam. Therefore, in his evidence-on-affidavit, DW-2 does not disclose his relationship with the other three voters whose names appear in the said voters' list. 22. Thus, even DW-2 has failed to show his link with the persons whose names appear in the NRC of 1951 (Ext. A), and the said Ext. F fails to connect the petitioner with her projected parents. Similarly, the EPIC of DW-2 (Ext. G), though reflecting the name of his father as Jinnat Ali, lacks evidence to show that the Jinnat Ali whose name appears in the NRC of 1951 (Ext. A) is the same Jinnat Ali whose name appears as the father of DW-2 in the EPIC (Ext. G). 23. In this case, the petitioner has failed to exhibit any document showing the continuous stay of her parents in India after the name of her father Page No.# 7/8 appeared in the NRC of 1951 and until the date when evidence was tendered by DW-1 and DW-2, which is the requirement of Section 6A(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Therefore, the special provisions relating to the citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord also do not come to the aid of the petitioner to prove that her parents had continuously stayed in the country within the scope of Section 6A(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 24. The petitioner has not been able to show anything from the records of the learned Tribunal to establish that she could link herself to her projected parents or to her projected elder brother in any manner whatsoever. 25. Although this Court is conscious of the fact that some discrepancies in the names of persons cannot be viewed very seriously against the proceedee, in the present case, the petitioner and DW-2 have miserably failed even to refer to the four entries made in the NRC and to link them with the entries made in any other exhibited document. 26. As stated hereinbefore, though the NRC record is not admissible in evidence, the reason being that the exercise for the preparation of the NRC of 1951 was undertaken under the Census Act, yet, notwithstanding the same, the village to which the said NRC pertains is Kasem Mondalor Gaon. 27. On perusal of Ext. A, it appears that the name appearing at Serial No. 3 is Ajiman Bibi, shown to be aged 25 years as per the NRC of 1951. 28. This would mean that the said person was born in or around the year 1926, which is in contrast to the statement made by the petitioner in her cross- examination on 05.10.2016, wherein she stated that the age of her mother was approximately 100 years, which would mean that her mother had been born sometime around 1916. Therefore, there is a mismatch in the projected age. Page No.# 8/8 29. Moreover, in the voters' list of 1997 (Ext. F), her name appears as Ajirun Nessa, aged 75 years, which would place her year of birth at around 1922. 30. Notwithstanding the fact that the said Ajirun Nessa is a voter of village Abadigaon, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence by the petitioner regarding the shifting of her mother to village Abadigaon. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal. 31. Accordingly, the challenge made by the petitioner in this writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 32. The consequences of the said opinion shall follow. 33. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal's records along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant