Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010013662018 2026:GAU-AS:13242 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/501/2018 RITA RANI DAS @ DIPALI RANI DAS W/O- KRIPESH DAS R/O- VILL- NUTAN RAMNAGAR PT-II, P.S. SONAI, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) CACHAR SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER 1 NO. SILCHAR LAC P.S. SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM P.O. AND P.S. BHANGAGARH GHY-5 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM, MR. Z ALAM,MS. S NAZRIN,MR A HAWARI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 09.09.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, FT and Border matters, Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 27.12.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th Silchar, in F.T. 6th Case No. 545/2016, arising out of P.S.- Sonai, FA/Case No. 304/14 declaring the petitioner as a foreigner who has entered India illegally after 25.03.1971. 3. On receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement wherein apart from the usual defence, it was stated that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and that Page No.# 3/7 her deceased father had migrated from Bangladesh in the year 1964 for which reliance was placed on Relief Eligibility Certificate. She has stated that her actual and correct name is Dipali Rani Das, daughter of Late Harokishore Das, which she used to write before her marriage and after her marriage her name was changed to Rita Rani Das, wife of Kripesh Das. She also stated that she had completed her schooling from 678 No. Krishana charan Pathsala, Rangirkhari, up to Class-IV in the year 2005. She has further stated that for the purpose of livelihood her family used to reside some time in Assam, some time in Meghalaya and some time in Tripura and after the death of her father the petitioner and other family members had permanently settled in Silchar, Cachar, Assam in the year 1993. 4. The petitioner examined herself as DW-1 and in support of her defence she had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Relief Eligibility Certificate dated 15.09.1964 (Ext.1); (ii) Voter list of 1993 of 9 Silchar LAC (Ext.2); (iii) Voter list of 2016 of 10 Sonai LAC (Ext.3). The petitioner had stated that Rita Rani Das and Dipali Rani Das is one and the same person and Promod Kumar Talukdar and Harokishore Das Talukdar is one and the same person, i.e., the father of the petitioner. 5. The learned Tribunal, in the impugned opinion had referred to the exhibited documents. By referring to the contents of the Relief Eligibility Certificate (Ext.1), the learned Tribunal had recorded that the name of the father of the petitioner was Harkishore Das Talukdar, and in voter list of 1993 (Ext.2), the name of the petitioner is Dipali Rani Das, daughter of Horikishore Das, and in the voter list of 2016 (Ext.3), the name of the voter is Rita Rani Das, wife of Kripesh Das, of village Nuton Ramnagar Pt-I under 10 Sonai LAC. Accordingly, on the ground that there is no document to show that Pramud Page No.# 4/7 Ranjan Talukdar and Har Kishore Das Talukdar is same and one person that Dipali Rani Das and Rita Rani Das is same and one person. Hence, the learned Tribunal had observed that there was difficulty in accepting that Har Kishore Das Talukdar is the genuine father of the petitioner. Accordingly, the evidence tendered by the petitioner was not found sufficient and trustworthy, the same was rejected and the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 6. In this writ petition, some additional documents have been annexed, including an affidavit dated 24.07.2023, sworn by 2 (two) persons namely, Sri Hiralal Das Talukdar and Sri Himangshu Das Talukdar, where, amongst others, it has been stated that Dipali Rani Das Talukdar @ Rita Rani Das is one and the same person. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Certificate of Registration (Annexure-2 to this writ petition) and the certificate dated 16.07.2015 issued by the Ward Commissioner, Ward No.19, Silchar Municipal Board (Annexure-B), has submitted that Rita Rani Das, wife of Kripesh Das is the daughter of Harkishore Das Talukdar of N.H, Silchar-12, P.O.- Rangirkhari in the District of Cachar having Elector Photo Identity Card bearing number as mentioned therein to be an inhabitant of Silchar Municipal Board, Ward No.19. The said documents have been brought on record by way of an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 09.11.2023. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted by a photocopy of the Certification of Registration dated 27.03.1967, issued by the Registration Officer, Khowai, Area No.16, Tripura. 8. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents now produced would also establish that she is not a foreigner. Page No.# 5/7 9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Border and FT matters has made a submission in support of the impugned opinion. 10. Considered the submissions and also perused the Tribunal’s records that was called for. 11. In this case, the written statement filed by the petitioner is absolutely vague and bereft of any material particulars being disclosed. In the written statement, the petitioner has not disclosed the name of her grandparents, her father’s siblings, mother and about her own siblings, if any. The petitioner projects that her father issued a Relief Eligibility Certificate (Ext1). The head of the family in whose name the eligibility certificate was issued, is Harkishore Das Talukdar. Though the contents of the said Relief Eligibility Certificate have not been proved, but on a perusal of the documents it appears that the person in whose name the Relief Eligibility Certificate was issued had entered into India on 27.08.1964 at Silchar. The members of the family that has migrated are Har Kishore Das Talukdar, male, aged 30 years, Shyamala Das Talukdar, wife, female, aged 22 years, Hira Lal Das Talukdar, son, male, aged about 1 month. Therefore, notwithstanding that the names of the family members who migrated into India alongwith Har Kishore Das Talukdar were not pleaded, but from the contents of Ext-1, it is seen that Hira Lal Das Talukdar, the son of the person, in whose name Relief Eligibility Certificate was issued aged about 1(one) month, perhaps as on 27.08.1964, the date of arrival in India and the date of first reporting. However, the petitioner, alongwith her additional affidavit filed on 09.11.2023 has annexed a copy of an affidavit purportedly signed by Sri Hiralal Das Talukdar and Sri Himangshu Das Talukdar aged about 62 and 51 years respectively. The said affidavit was sworn on 24.07.2023. Thus, as per the said affidavit, Hiralal Das Talukdar, was born in the year 1961 but in the Relief Page No.# 6/7 Eligibility Certificate, the infant who had accompanied Harkishore Das Talukdar was one month old as on 27.08.1964, the date of arrival in India. Hence, there is a clear mismatch in age. Moreover, on account of non disclosure of the name of the mother and siblings, it cannot be said as to whether the actual person name Hiralal Das Talukdar who was one month as on 27.08.1964 was the person who had sworn the affidavit on 24.07.2023. Therefore, evidence contrary to the documentary evidence cannot be considered on account of the fact that though the projected father of the petitioner, whose name appears in the Relief Eligibility Certificate is Harkishore Das Talukdar, but in the Electoral Roll of voters list of 1993 (Ext.2), the name of the projected brother of the petitioner is referred to as Hiralal Das, and that in the voters list of 2016 (Ext.3), the name of the voter is shown as Rita Rani Das. 12. Therefore, insofar as the documentary evidence is concerned, the Court has no material to give a finding contrary to the one that was arrived at the learned Tribunal by holding that the petitioner has not been able to discharge her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to prove that she was born through genuine Indian parents. 13. It is reiterated that in the written statement, the relevant and material facts have not been pleaded, and in the absence of disclosure of the name of the mother of the petitioner or when the mother and father of the petitioner had died or regarding the existence of her siblings, the photocopy of the affidavit which is appended to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 09.11.2023, cannot be accepted as a documentary evidence by which the relationship of the petitioner can be said to have been proved with her projected father. 14. Accordingly, the challenge made in this writ petition fails and the writ Page No.# 7/7 petition is dismissed. 15. The consequences of the opinion dated 27.12.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th Silchar, in F.T. 6th Case No. 545/2016, arising out of P.S.- Sonai, FA/Case No. 304/14, shall follow. 16. The Registry shall send back the Tribunals records alongwith a copy of the order to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal. 17. Before parting with the records, as prayed for, the Court is inclined to make it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the learned Tribunal for taking back the original document marked as Exhibit-1, which is the Relief Eligibility Certificate. 18. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also provided that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a Bar for the petitioner to avail any other statutory remedy that may be available to her. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant