Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010271902019 2026:GAU-AS:11876 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8512/2019 ANIL MONI DAS S/O- TINU RAM @ TINU MONI DAS, R/O- VILL- KAHARA PATHAR, P.S AND DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSSAM PIN- 781301 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BARPETA Page No.# 2/9 ASSAM PIN- 781301 6:THE NRC REP. BY THE STATE COORDINATOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI, MS R BEGUM,MS. M DEVI,MR D KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 19.08.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. R. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Bhattacharjya, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional 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 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 215/16, arising out of IM(D)T Ref Case No. 5435/98, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. Page No.# 3/9 3. This writ petition was filed on 05.11.2019 and the records of the Tribunal was called for by order dated 05.05.2020. As the records have been received, with the consent of all sides, the matter has been heard. 4. On receipt of notice of the proceeding, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement, amongst others, stating that he was born and brought up at village- Kahara Pather, Mouza- Bhawanipur under P.S. and District- Barpeta. He claimed that the name of his father is Tinu Ram Das @ Tinu Moni Das @ Tinu Ram Moni Das, inhabitant of the same locality, whose name appeared in the voter lists of 1960 and 1970 from village- Kahara Pather, under 48 Bhawanipur LAC and his name also appeared in the NRC details of 1951 as a resident of the same village. The petitioner had stated in his written statement that the Gaonburah of Kahara Pather has issued a certificate. 5. It is further stated that in the voter lists of 1985, the name of the petitioner as well as his brother appeared under village- Kahara Pather under 41 No. Bhawanipur LAC. The name of the petitioner appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1997, but was marked as “Doubtful” voter, which remained in the voter lists of 1987 to 1996. Accordingly, it was stated that the petitioner was not a foreigner, but an Indian citizen. 6. In support of his evidence, the petitioner had examined himself as (DW-1) and one Priya Nath, the Gaonburah of village- Kahara Pather and Kahara Gaon was examined as DW-2. The petitioner had reiterated the statements made in the written statement in his evidence-on-affidavit. As per the said evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has exhibited the following documents: a. Photocopy of voter list of 1960 (Ext.A), Page No.# 4/9 b. Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B), c. Certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.C), d. Name correction affidavit (Ext.D), e. Certified of the Gaonburah of Kahara Pather (Ext.E). 7. However, on a perusal of the Tribunal’s record, Ext.A is the compared with original photocopy of certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1970. Ext.B is the compared photocopy of the certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1989, which contains the name of the voter as Anil Ch. Das, son of Telu Ram, aged 40 years. The affidavit sworn before the Notary Public on 31.05.2017 was marked as Ext.C. The certificate of the Gaonburah was marked as Ext.D and Ext.D(i) is the signature of the Gaonburah. 8. In his cross-examination, the petitioner has stated that his name is Anil Mani Das and his father’s name is Late Tinu Ram Das. He did not remember when his father had expired. He has stated that he was born in Kahara Pather and he did not remember when his father had died. He has stated that he has a brother, whose name is Kishor Lal Mani Das, who had expired. He did not remember when his mother had expired. He has land property at Kahara Pather. He denied that he had given false evidence. 9. The petitioner has examined one Priya Nath, the Gaonburah of Kahara village as DW-2. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that Ext.D was the certificate issued by him and Ext.D(i) is his signature. He has stated that he knows the petitioner and his other family members and they are presently residing at Kahara Pather. He had also stated that the name of Anil Mani Das and his family appeared in the voters list and he does not remember when their Page No.# 5/9 names had appeared. 10. In his cross-examination, the DW-2 has stated that he is the Gaonburah since 1984. The name of the father of the petitioner was Tenu, who had expired in 1960. The petitioner is a resident of his village. He maintains a Register of Certificates issued by him and has been issuing certificates since last 10 (ten) years as Gaonburah of Kahara Pather and Kahara Gaon and about 7000 residents reside in these two villages. He has stated that he has not maintained any register. He has denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence. 11. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the materials available on record, referred to the stand taken in the written statement and the evidence available on record and it was held that on a scrutiny of the written statement, it was evident that the petitioner had not disclosed the basic material facts which were within his specific knowledge. Though he had claimed citizenship by birth, but the petitioner did not mention where he was born. He remained silent regarding his mother, grandmother, grandfather and children of his grandfather. Accordingly, it was observed that when a person’s citizenship is questioned by the State, one has to disclose all material facts which are within the knowledge of the petitioner to establish his citizenship and is required to prove it by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. 12. Referring to Ext.A, which is the Electoral Roll of 1970, the learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner had projected his brother's name from the Electoral Roll of 1970, but he has not submitted any other voters list of his father after 1970, and accordingly Ext.A was held to be not reliable. 13. Referring to the Electoral Roll of 1989 (Ext.B), the learned Tribunal Page No.# 6/9 observed that the age of the petitioner was 40, and accordingly, it was held that the petitioner was eligible to vote prior to 1989, but he has not disclosed the reasons why his name did not appear in any voters list prior to that. 14. The learned Tribunal had observed that Annexures- A, B and C were photocopies and could not be relied upon. Ext.A and Ext.B were two voters lists containing single name, and therefore, the learned Tribunal had observed that no conclusive opinion could be drawn as to whether the said voter list actually belonged to the brother of the petitioner or not. The learned Tribunal has also referred to the deposition of the Gaonburah (DW-2), the said witness referred to his certificate (Ext.D) and his signature thereon [Ext.D(i)]. 15. It would suffice to mention that the evidence of DW-2 was not found trustworthy as he had issued the certificate that the petitioner was a resident of his village. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Consequentially, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal was not sustainable as the learned Tribunal had discarded the evidence to the effect that Anil Ch. Das, whose name appeared in the voters list of 1989 (Ext.B) was his brother. It was submitted that the photocopy of the Electoral Roll of 1989 discloses the name of the petitioner along with his projected brother, but the learned Tribunal took a hyper-technical view and rejected the claim of the petitioner as the voters list were photocopies. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner appeared with his brother in the Page No.# 7/9 Electoral Roll of 1997, 2005, and 2008, and it could be corroborated with the entries made in the legacy data of the father of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was submitted that the link between the petitioner and his father and the projected brother was established. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to paragraph-15 of the writ petition and it was submitted that though the impugned opinion of 13.12.2018 was assailed, but by then the petitioner was detained in jail awaiting deportation. It is submitted that she has no instructions as to the present whereabouts of the petitioner. 18. The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border department has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. 19. It would be pertinent to mention that the learned Tribunal had incorrectly appreciated the statements made by the petitioner in his cross- examination. However, it may be stated that the discrepancy in appreciation of the cross-examination is not material which could otherwise dislodge the petitioner from the status which arose out of the impugned opinion dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 215/16. 20. The incorrect reading of the cross-examination is to the effect that DW- 2 had not stated that Ext.B was issued on the basis of the petitioner being his neighbour. However, it has been stated in the cross-examination to the effect that the petitioner was his resident. The use of words “his resident” appears to be an error, which ought to have been the “his co-villager”, for which the certificate was issued. The statement of DW-2 that he maintains a register of Page No.# 8/9 certified copy, which was wrongly appreciated as if he does not maintain any register. 21. The said discrepancies, in the considered opinion of the Court, would not be of any effect and do not render the opinion as perverse. 22. The fact remains that the petitioner had disclosed his age as 63 years in his written statement filed on 01.10.2016, and therefore, he was born in the year 1953, and he was eligible to cast his vote after the year 1974. However, his name got enrolled in the Electoral Roll in the year 1989 at the age of 40 years. There is no document regarding the existence of Kishor Moni Das, whose name appears in the Electoral Roll of 1970 (Ext.A), who was mentioned as the son of Tenu Moni Das, aged 28 years. Though the petitioner has stated in the written statement that his name along with the name of his brother appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1985, but the said voter list was not exhibited. 23. The Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.D), exhibited by DW-2 is found to be not admissible in evidence because of the use of the State Emblem, which the Gaonburah is not authorized to use. Therefore, a mere certificate from the Gaonburah would not be enough to prove that the petitioner was a citizen of India or that his parents or elder brother were in India before the cut off date of 25.03.1971. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to link himself with Kishor Moni Das, who is projected as his elder brother and whose name appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1970 (Ext.A). 24. Resultantly, the Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned opinion dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 215/16. Page No.# 9/9 25. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 26. Consequence of the impugned opinion shall follow. 27. Registry shall send back the records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record. 28. The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned authorities. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant