Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010137502026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4886/2026 MD ENNUS ALI ALIAS MD ENOSH ALI S/O LATE ASUMUDDIN ALIAS OSIMUDDIN, VILLAGE- GERUA MUKH, P.S.- KHATWAL, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI 110001 2:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001. 3:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 ASSAM. 4:THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER STATE OF ASSAM GUWAHATI ASSAM 5:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER SAMAGURI LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 09.09.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Md. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. S. Katakey, 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 02.04.2009, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal II, Nagaon, in FT Case No. 64/07(B) by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner in the stream of 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. 3. The learned standing counsel for the Border has opposed in issuance of notice or admission of the writ petition for hearing on account of inordinate delay and latches in assailing opinion dated 02.04.2009. 4. On perusal of the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto it is observed that the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Page No.# 3/6 Nagaon to the learned Tribunal to give an opinion as to (i) whether the petitioner has entered India from East Pakistan in between 01.01.1996 to 25.03.1971; (ii) whether the petitioner had been ordinarily resident of India since his entry into the Country; (iii) Whether the petitioner was detected or not. 5. As per the contents impugned opinion dated 02.04.2009, in support of his contention, the petitioner has exhibited a voter list of 1965 (Ext.1) of Samaguri LAC containing the names of (1) Osmuddin, son of Ajimuddin (2) Ayesa Banu, wife of Osmoddin and the second document exhibited by the petitioner is the certificate from the Government Gaonburah of village Geruamukh (Ext.2), stating that the name of the father of the petitioner has appeared in the voter list of 1965. The Government Gaonburah was examined as DW-2 and he had specifically stated that he did not see either the father or grandfather of the petitioner and that he had not stated in his certificate (Ext.2) that the petitioner was born in Geruamukh. 6. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal having found insufficient evidence laid before it, held that it could not be established that the parents of the petitioner actually resided before 1965 in the Samaguri LAC and there is no evidence that the petitioner was born in the village Geruamukh. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of the stream of 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. 7. This writ petition was filed on 26.06.2026 to assail the opinion dated 02.04.2009 but the petitioner has not made any attempt to explain the inordinate delay in assailing the impugned opinion dated 02.04.2009. Moreover, it appears from the record that though the writ petition was filed on 26.06.2026, the Registry detected certain defects in the filing, the defects are as follows:- (a) filing form is devoid of the contact of the petitioner; (b) name of the petitioner’s father and police station has been spelt differently in Page No.# 4/6 the cause title and the affidavit; (c) undertaking regarding service of notice has not been furnished. 8. Despite notice, the defects were not rectified within reasonable time and the defects were ultimately rectified on 02.09.2026. In the writ petition, it has been stated that some delay has occurred in filing the writ petition. Having noted that the petitioner has accepted the effect of the opinion dated 02.04.2009 for more than 17 years i.e. from 02.04.2009 to 26.06.2026 and there is no explanation as to the causes of delay and laches in filing the present writ petition only on 26.06.2026, the Court is not inclined to entertain this highly belated writ petition because of inordinate delay and laches. Accordingly, as the petitioner has accepted his status as a declared foreign national for more than 17 (seventeen) years and resultant loss of right to exercise franchise, this writ petition stands dismissed on account of delay and laches. 9. Nonetheless, as the issue of citizenship of the petitioner is involved, the materials available in this writ petition has been examined. As stated earlier the petitioner has exhibited two documents i.e. voter list of 1965 (Ext.1) and Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.2). The petitioner has not annexed a copy of his written statement filed before the Court and therefore, whether the exhibited documents are as per the pleadings cannot be verified. Moreover, except for the Ext.2, there is no evidence of any document where the name of the petitioner appears with his father and mother. The voter-list, as a stand-alone document is not a proof of citizenship. This Court, in the case of Md. Fakharuddin vs Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 4512/2016 decided on 28.02.2018, had held that just because the name of a person is enlisted in the voter list, it would not mean that he is a citizen of India. Moreover, by exhibiting the voter list of 1966 (Ext.1), the same would not be a prove that the voter of Ext.1 is the father of the petitioner. Page No.# 5/6 Moreover, from the cross-examination of DW-2, as discussed above it cannot be said that Ext.2 is a proof that the petitioner is the son of the person whom he had projected to be his father. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Basiron Nessa vs Union of India, 2018 (4) GLT 692, has held that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not by oral testimony. In this regard, it may be stated that the Gaonburah is appointed under the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1881 and under the said Regulation, a Gaonburah has no duty to maintain a population register of his village. Moreover, in the case of Jabeda Begum v. Union of India, (2021) 1 GLR 59: 2020 (2) GLT 603, this Court has held that certificate by Gaonburah can never be a proof of citizenship. At best the said certificate can be used by a married woman to prove that after marriage she had shifted to her matrimonial home as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupajan Begum vs Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 579. Thus, on merit also, the petitioner has not be able to make out a case of interference with the impugned opinion. 10. Before perusing the records, the Court having noted that there were variations in the cause title and the affidavit and having noticed that there were corrections in the affidavit with regard to the names of the father of the petitioner as well as the contact number, which were not authenticated by the petitioner, the Court is inclined to bring this to the notice of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court so as to issue appropriate instructions to the filing Section so that no affidavit should be allowed to be amended after the same is presented before this Court and moreover, if the affidavit filed contains some corrections, they are required to be authenticated by the concerned deponent. This direction is being issued on the ground that an affidavit, after it has been being sworned, cannot be amended. Page No.# 6/6 11. This writ petition accordingly dismissed. 12. There shall be no orders as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant