Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010084482026 2026:GAU- AS:10562-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2406/2026 MUSSTT MANIKJAN DAUGHTER OF LATE SABAR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BATOMARI, P.S.- RUPOHIHAT, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782125. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 3:COORDINATOR N.R.C. ASSAM GUWAHATI 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME AND POLITICAL B DEPARTMENT DISPUR-781006. 5:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO 3 NAGAON DISTRICT-NAGAON PIN 782001. Page No.# 2/6 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON ASSAM PIN782002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P SARMAH, MR. P SARMAH,R BASUMATARY,MR R CHAKRAVORTY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 30.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. R. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, F.T and Border matters, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Mr. R. B. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Manikjan, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 10.10.2025, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd,Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. NFT.(No.3) (D) 1201/2016 (Corresponding to D/Case No.988/98), thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post Page No.# 3/6 25.03.1971 stream. 3. In view of the order of remand proposed to be passed, the Court refrains, in the present order, from dealing with or discussing the pleadings and the evidence on record. 4. It would suffice to mention that in the connection with the said proceedings, the petitioner appeared and filed a written statement and along with her evidence on affidavit, amongst others, the petitioner had exhibited the certified copy of the opinion dated 22.02.2016, passed by the same Tribunal i.e. learned Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. NFT.(No.3) 444/15 (Police Case No.F.T 67/15), by which the petitioner was declared not to be a foreigner who entered into India after 25.03.1971, rather the learned Tribunal opined that she is an Indian citizen by birth. 5. The learned Tribunal discarded the said opinion dated 22.02.2016 (Ext.10) on the ground that in the said reference no document was proved. Factually, the said finding recorded in paragraph 16 of the impugned opinion dated 10.10.2025, appears to be incorrect because it appears from the contents of the opinion dated 22.02.2016 that the learned Tribunal had made reference to a certificate issued by the Village Headman, which was marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1 (i) was the signature of O.P.W-2 in the said case. Reference is also made in the said opinion to the voter lists of 1965 (Ext.2) and 1970 (Ext.3). Accordingly, the said finding, being factually incorrect, is held to be perverse. 6. The learned Tribunal relied on the evidence of the petitioner who had examined herself as O.P.W-1, the Village Headman (O.P.W-2) and the projected Page No.# 4/6 elder brother of the petitioner (O.P.W-3). 7. The learned Standing Counsel, Border and F.T matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion and it is submitted that the said opinion dated 22.02.2016 and the evidence discussed therein were grossly inadequate to hold the petitioner to be a citizen and therefore, he has supported the finding and opinion of the learned Tribunal dated 10.10.2025, impugned herein. 8. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 604, has held that the principles of res judicata applied in respect of the opinion rendered by the Foreigners Tribunals. Moreover, by following the ratio laid down in the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra), this Court in the case of Sital Mandal Vs. Union of India and others and other connected cases by a common judgment and order dated 28.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/2099/2018 and other connected cases, directed that whenever the proceedee takes a plea of applicability of res judicata on the ground that he/she has been already declared not a foreigner but an Indian by the Foreigners Tribunal in earlier proceedings, the Tribunal has to take it up as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case and the proceedee in the subsequent proceedings has to show that he is the same person who was proceeded earlier. 9. As the principles of res judicata applies in the proceedings of the Foreigners Tribunals, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra) and followed by this Court in the case of Sital Mandal (supra), the Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of Ext.10, Page No.# 5/6 being the opinion passed by the same learned Tribunal i.e. learned Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. NFT.(No.3) 444/15 (Police Case No.F.T 67/15), cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the impugned opinion dated 10.10.2025, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd,Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. NFT.(No.3) (D) 1201/2016 (Corresponding to D/Case No.988/98) is hereby set aside. 10. The matter is remanded back to the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, Assam to re-examine Ext.10, being the previous opinion referred to above. However, the said learned Tribunal shall also be required to examine as to whether the petitioner is the same person who was earlier proceeded with in F.T. Case No. NFT.(No.3) 444/15 (Police Case No.F.T 67/15). 11. In the event, the petitioner is not the proceedee who was proceeded earlier, it will be open to the learned Tribunal to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. 12. It is clarified that save and except perversity in appreciation of opinion dated 22.02.2016, discussed herein before, and the issue of res judicata, relating to Ext.10 of the instant proceedings, the merit of the opinion dated 10.10.2025 on other aspects has not been entered into. Therefore, the said learned Tribunal shall pass a fresh opinion without being influenced by any other observation contained in this order. 13. The petitioner, who is duly represented by the learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, Assam within the outer time limit of 28.08.2026 and produce a certified copy of Page No.# 6/6 this order before the said learned Tribunal, and await for further orders to be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 14. As the order is being passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be no requirement of any notice being served upon the petitioner for her appearance in the proceedings. 15. The Registry shall return back the Tribunal records expeditiously. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant