Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010202802019 2026:GAU-AS:12224 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6744/2019 SMTI RENUKA BISWAS @ MAYARANI BISWAS D/O LATE ASHIWINI KUMAR BISWAS, E/O LATE NIDU @ NIDHU BISWAS, R/O VILL-SARUBHAGIA, P.O. AND P.S.-JAKHALABANDHA, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POLITICAL AND HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN BHABAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER ASSAM HOUSFED COMPLEX BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006 5:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER KALIABOR SUB-DIVISION Page No.# 2/7 DIST-NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER- CUM-ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON P.O. AND DIST-NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAPN P.O. AND DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.08.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India; 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, namely, Smti. Renuka Biswas @ Mayarani Biswas, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 23.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (8th), Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. FT(K)-100/2015 Page No.# 3/7 [F.T. (Old) Case No. 113/2011], arising out of S.P. (Ref) Case No. 1780/2010, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had entered Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 3. On receipt of the notice of the proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement. The written statement filed by the petitioner is bereft of any material particulars, and no disclosure has been is made with regard to her parents, grandparents, siblings, or her own children, as to their date/year of birth, place of birth, or any other material from which they can be identified. In the written statement, it was merely stated that there was no cause of action against the petitioner and that she was not a foreigner, but a citizen of India by birth. Her actual name was stated to be Renuka Biswas and not Mayarani Biswas. She had stated that she is an illiterate person and does not know how to read and write, and she received the notice from the concerned authority ignorantly. The petitioner had stated that she was married to Nidu Biswas and since her marriage, she has been residing with her husband, who is a resident of Sarubhogia, P.S.- Jakhalabandha, District- Nagaon. 4. In her additional written statement, the petitioner disclosed that the name of her father is enlisted in the voter list of 1971/1965 of 19 No. Kaliabor LAC. She stated that the authorities did not verify the documents, nor was the petitioner asked to produce any documents. She stated that she would be able to prove her Indian nationality by producing relevant documents. 5. In her evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had reiterated the statements made in her written statement and additional written statement. She had disclosed the name of her father as Late Ashini Biswas and the name of her Page No.# 4/7 mother as Abola Biswas. Her father is stated to have three brothers including himself, namely, Dinesh Biswas and Girindra Biswas. Her father is stated to be a voter of 88 No. Samaguri LAC along with other family members, and she was a voter of 89 No. Kaliabor LAC. While denying that she had come from Bangladesh after 31.03.1971, she had reiterated that she was married to Nidhu Biswas of village- Pachim Showaloni under Rupahihat Police Station in the district of Nagaon about 28 years back, where she is living along with her husband and four children, and she had prayed for the dismissal of the reference. 6. As the petitioner had not exhibited any document in support of her defence, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner had not exhibited a single document by which she could link herself to her projected father. It was held that the material facts pleaded in the written statement are required to be proved by adducing cogent, reliable, and admissible evidence, and that a party cannot travel beyond its pleadings. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to prove the facts in issue by adducing oral and documentary evidence, which were cogent, admissible, and reliable, and accordingly, the petitioner, namely Smt. Mayarani Biswas, was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had taken a plea in the written statement that she is not Mayarani Biswas, but that her actual name is Renuka Biswas. It was also submitted that the petitioner was an illiterate lady and could not produce any documents along with her evidence-on-affidavit, but she has annexed to this writ petition a copy of the registered sale deed showing the presence of Ashini Biswas, her projected father, in the territory of India before 25.03.1971. Page No.# 5/7 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the documents annexed to this writ petition, being a copy of the sale deed registered on 10.02.1964 in the name of Ashini Biswas, her projected father, along with two other purchasers. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the voter list of 1971 containing the name of Ashini Kumar Biswas, son of Monmohan; a photocopy of the electoral roll of 88 No. Samaguri LAC of the year 1997; and a photocopy of the certified copy of the voter list of 2017 of 89 No. Kaliabor LAC. The petitioner has also annexed a photocopy of the certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah, as well as an affidavit sworn by her on 09.08.2019. 9. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to exhibit all the relevant documents before the learned Tribunal. 10. The challenge to the impugned opinion as well as the prayer for remand is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, who has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. 11. On consideration of the materials available in the learned Tribunal's records, it is seen that the petitioner has not exhibited any document so as to discharge her burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, that the petitioner is a citizen of India. Though the petitioner has taken a plea that her name is Renuka Biswas and not Mayarani Biswas, the documents available in the Tribunal's records indicate that while filing the additional written statement, the petitioner has signed therein as Mayarani Biswas. 12. On appreciation of the documents which are now filed in this writ Page No.# 6/7 petition, it is seen that the petitioner has not been able to prove the link regarding her presence in the Country prior to 25.03.1971 and she has also not succeeded to show that her parents were in the State of Assam prior to the cut- off date. In the copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the same discloses that Renuka Biswas and Mayarani Biswas are names of the same person. Moreover, the hazira filed before the learned Foreigners Tribunal contains an endorsement showing the thumb impression to be of Mayarani Biswas, and the Right Thumb Impression (RTI for short) of the petitioner in the evidence-on-affidavit is also endorsed as Mayarani Biswas. 13. Notwithstanding that no documents were exhibited by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, even in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to show her existence in the Country either by herself or that her father was a citizen of India. 14. Moreover, on a perusal of the documents now annexed to the writ petition for the first time, the sole name of Ashini Kumar Biswas appears in the electoral roll of 1971 of 90 No. Kaliabor LAC. As per the voter list of 1997, the petitioner is a resident of the house of her father-in-law in village- Pub Suwalni under Rupahi Laonkhowa Police Station. The 2017 voter list is of village Sarubhagia under Jakhalabandha Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to connect herself with her projected parents, showing them to be Indian nationals. The Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction and not appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court cannot examine and give its opinion after appreciating documents produced for the first time before it. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that she Page No.# 7/7 has been in the Country before 25.03.1971, either on her own or through her parents, who had been residing in the State of Assam before 25.03.1971. 16. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 17. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 18. Registry shall send back the Tribunal's records along with a copy of this order. 19. As the challenge to the impugned opinion dated 23.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (8th), Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. FT(K)- 100/2015 fails, the consequences shall follow. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant