Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010227212018 2026:GAU-AS:12401 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7202/2018 JAYANTI DAS D/O- LATE SANTOSH CHANDRA DAS, W/O- SRI PRANOY DAS, R/O- VILL- NUTAN SUKHA PUNJI, RATANPUR, P.S- UDHARBAND, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 5 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR P.O- SILCHAR Page No.# 2/10 PIN- 788006 DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 781001 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SILCHAR POLICE STATION P.O- SILCHAR PIN- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. J PAUL, MS S BHOWMICK Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, 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, Jayanti Das, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 14.02.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, in F.T.(D) Case No. 192/2016, arising out of Ref. Udharbond P.S. Page No.# 3/10 I.M.(D).T. Case No. 3062/98, thereby declaring the petitioner and her 5 (five) children, namely, (1) Nilima Das, (2) Gauranga Das, (3) Anjan Das, (4) Anjana Das, and (5) Amarendra Das to be foreigners of post 25.03.1971. 3. On appearance before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner contested the proceedings by filing her written statement and, in support thereof, filed her evidence-on-affidavit, stating that her father is Santosh Chandra Das, who possessed a Citizenship Certificate as a citizen of India under the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, bearing No. 833, dated 25.11.1956, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karimganj. The said certificate was exhibited as Ext.1. The petitioner also relied on a Family Identity Card of Village Ratanpur of Madhura Gaon Panchayat under P.S. Udharbond, issued by the Inspector of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Cachar, which was marked as Ext.2. In support of her birth in India and her marriage with Pranoy Das, the petitioner relied upon a certificate issued by the Secretary, Jurbari Defalala Gaon Panchayat, Karimganj (now Sribhumi), which was marked as Ext.3. In support of the fact that she has 5 (five) children, the petitioner referred to the birth certificates of two of her children, namely, Gouranga Das and Amarendra Das, which were marked as Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively. 4. It was stated that she has a brother, namely, Satyajit Ch. Das, who had cast his vote in the year 1997. Ext.6 is the certified copy of the voters list of the projected brother of the petitioner. 5. In her cross-examination, the petitioner had stated that she was born at Hatirgool under Patharkandi Police Station. She stated that she had no document relating to her schooling and that as proof of her age, she had only Page No.# 4/10 her Income Tax PAN Card, which was marked as Ext.1(c). She had admitted that she had not submitted any document regarding the existence of her parents in India between 1966 and 1971. She denied that Ext.1 was a forged document. She admitted that she had not submitted any document in her favour except the voter list of 1997 relating to her brother, Satyajit Ch. Das. She stated that she had not cast any vote in any election for MP or MLA till date. However, she denied that she is a foreigner. 6. It appears from the records as well as the impugned opinion that in the present case, the Electoral Registration Officer for 12-Udharbond LAC, having doubt regarding the citizenship of the petitioner, directed the LVO to submit a report. The report submitted by LVO was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, who had submitted the same to the learned Foreigners Tribunal. 7. The learned Tribunal, with reference to the PAN Card [Ext.4(a)], observed that although it shows the name of the petitioner's father as Santosh Chandra Das and it also contains the petitioner's date of birth, it was held that the said exhibit was not proved or corroborated by any document linking the petitioner with her projected father. In this regard, it was further observed that the petitioner had never stated her place of birth and that no proof of her date of birth was furnished either in the pleadings or in the evidence. It was held that the pleadings and the exhibited documents regarding her projected father were also not corroborated by any other statement or document. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to substantiate that Santosh Chandra Das was her father. Page No.# 5/10 8. The learned Tribunal also observed that the projected father of the petitioner was 33 years of age as per Ext.1 when he migrated into India, Assam. However, there was no pleading regarding the petitioner's mother. The learned Tribunal also found discrepancy in the age of the petitioner. As per her affidavit, she had sworn her age to be 53 years, which would indicate that she was born in the year 1965, whereas, according to Ext.4(a), she was born in the year 1963. It was also held that the petitioner had failed to prove the identity of her mother or the residence and existence of her parents in India in terms of the Certificate of Registration issued in the year 1956. 9. The learned Tribunal further observed that for obtaining a Certificate of Registration, a person was required to establish his or her existence in Indian territory for not less than 7 (seven) years prior to the application, but in the present case in hand, the petitioner was silent as to when her father had come to India. Moreover, as all the children were born after 1992, the learned Tribunal doubted original certificates, which were collected in the years 2000 and 2001. 10. Accordingly, the reference was answered in the negative by holding that Ext.1 was not a trustworthy document and that the other exhibited documents did not establish that the petitioner was a citizen of India. Consequently, the learned Tribunal declared the petitioner as well as her five children, namely, (1) Nilima Das, (2) Gauranga Das, (3) Anjan Das, (4) Anjana Das, and (5) Amarendra Das, were declared to be foreigners of post 25.03.1971 stream. 11. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was put to notice that although the petitioner was assailing the impugned opinion also in respect of Page No.# 6/10 her 5 (five) children, none of the 5 (five) children had been impleaded as writ petitioners. It was further noticed that, at the time of filing of the writ petition, the elder son of the petitioner, namely, Amarendra Das, was already an adult and during the pendency of this writ petition, another son, namely, Gouranga Das, had also attained majority. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner was put to notice as to how without impleading the affected persons as writ petitioners, the impugned opinion could be set aside in respect of the children of the, notwithstanding that inquiry was stated to have been conducted against them by the Border Police. 12. In response to the said specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this regard she has specific instruction to the effect that the petitioners did not desire to implead her 5 (five) children as co- petitioners. 13. In respect of the Certificate of Registration of Shri Santosh Chandra Das as a citizen of India under the provisions of Section 5(1)(a)/(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, except for the PAN Card, there is no document linking the petitioner with her projected father. 14. The petitioner projects that she has a brother, namely, Satyajit Ch. Das, in respect of whom a certified copy of an extract from the electoral roll of 1997, bearing Application No. 1177/CA-2, issued on 07.09.2016, was exhibited. However, the projected brother of the petitioner did not come forward to prove the said electoral roll or to establish the identity of the father mentioned therein with the person in whose favour the Certificate of Registration had been issued. 15. It is well settled that a PAN Card is not a proof of citizenship, because Page No.# 7/10 the particulars are entered on the basis of the declaration made by the person applying for the same. The PAN Card is required to be proved by calling for the application submitted before the Income Tax authorities. In this regard, one may refer to the law laid down by this Court in Musstt. Rabiya Khatun v. the Union of India, WP(C) No. 4986/2016, decided on 09.02.2018, wherein this Court held that a PAN Card is not proof of citizenship and, moreover, that the petitioner therein was not an income tax payee and the PAN Card had not been proved by calling for the Income Tax records relating to the application for issuance of the PAN Card. 16. Moreover, it was also held in the above referred case that the PAN Card contains the date of birth and, if the petitioner knew her date of birth, she ought to have disclosed the same in her written statement or in her evidence, which had not been done. In that regard, as per the finding of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had disclosed in her affidavit that her age was 53 years and, therefore, she would have been born in the year 1965, whereas her year of birth is shown as 1963 in her PAN Card [Ext.4(a)], for which no explanation has been tendered. 17. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the materials available on record, arrived at the finding that this was a case of a "D" voter and that, the name of the petitioner did not appear in any document from the time of her birth, i.e. between 1963 and 1997. Moreover, Ext.1 having not been found trustworthy, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies upon the Certificate Page No.# 8/10 of Registration (Ext.1) as proof that the petitioner is the daughter of Santosh Chandra Das, in whose name the said Certificate of Registration was issued on 25.11.1956. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also heavily relies upon the Gaon Panchayat certificate (Ext.3). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for remand of the matter. 19. In the present case, the petitioner relies upon Ext.1, which is the Certificate of Registration. However, except for the PAN Card, there is no document linking the petitioner with her projected father. 20. Although the petitioner has produced her PAN Card [Ext.4(a)], in view of the law laid down in the case of Musstt. Rabiya Khatun (supra), the same is not reliable without calling for the original records relating to the application. Moreover, the year of birth of the petitioner, as stated in her evidence-on- affidavit, does not match the year of birth disclosed in the PAN Card. 21. Insofar as the Gaon Panchayat certificate is concerned (Ext.3), the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that the Gaon Panchayats were constituted in the State of Assam only after the enactment of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Therefore, the Gaon Panchayat is not likely to have any documents/records regarding the marriage of the petitioner which allegedly took place on 17.03.1985. The Court finds substantial force in the submission of learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate that the Gaon Panchayat was unlikely to have any record of a marriage which had taken place on 17.03.1985, when the Panchayat itself was not in existence at that time. 22. It may be stated that on the enactment of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the Assam Panchayat Ordinance, 1994 was repealed. As the Gaon Page No.# 9/10 Panchayat was constituted pursuant to the constitutional mandate introduced by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, the said Gaon Panchayat certificate is not found to help the petitioner in any way. 23. If the evidence of the PAN Card [Ext.4(a)] as well as the Gaon Panchayat certificate (Ext.3) are excluded, the petitioner has no link with her projected father, namely, Santosh Chandra Das, in whose name the Certificate of Registration (Ext.1) was issued. The projected brother of the petitioner, in respect of whom Ext.6 was exhibited, has also not come forward to prove his identity or the identity of his father. 24. Therefore, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned opinion. 25. Be that as it may, from the contents of the Tribunal's records and the reference made before the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar, the Court does not find any material to establish that any inquiry was conducted by the Border Police with regard to the five children of the petitioner, namely, (1) Nilima Das, (2) Gauranga Das, (3) Anjan Das, (4) Anjana Das, and (5) Amarendra Das. However, as the petitioner has not challenged the impugned opinion on behalf of her 5 (five) children, the Court does not find this to be a fit case for granting any relief in respect of the 5 (five) children of the petitioner, owing to the absence of any challenge to the said opinion insofar as the five children of the petitioner are concerned. 26. Therefore, this order shall not be a bar for the hereinbefore named 5 (five) children of the petitioner to take an appropriate defence, if so advised, in respect of the impugned opinion against them on the ground that no inquiry Page No.# 10/10 was conducted in respect of them and moreover, that the 5 (five) children of the petitioner could not derive their lineage through their mother and that they would derive the same from their paternal side. 27. The writ petition stands dismissed. The consequences of the impugned opinion dated 14.02.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, in F.T.(D) Case No. 192/2016 shall follow. 28. Registry to send back the Tribunal's records expeditiously along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of record by the learned Tribunal. 29. This order shall not be a bar to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy, if any, available to her, or for the 5 (five) children of the petitioner, as stated hereinbefore. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant