Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010066942023 2026:GAU-AS:13284-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1789/2023 NAZAR ALI S/O- LT. ASARUDDIN @ ASIR UDDIN, VILLAGE- SANTOSHPUR PT-III, P.S.- MERERCHAR, DIST- BONGAIGAON (ASSAM). VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN GS ROAD BHANGAGARH Page No.# 2/8 GUWAHATI- 781005. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BONGAIGAON ASSAM- 783380 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. F A FAROOQUE,MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NCHUMBEMO MOZHUI ORDER Date : 11.09.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.S. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. N. Kalita, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; 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 has assailed the impugned opinion dated 26.12.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri, in Case No. BNGN/FT-2/APR/375/2009, arising out of Ref. BNGN F.T. No. 143/09, by which on his failure to appear for cross-examination and to defend the reference, the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. For the purpose of discharging the burden as required under Section 9 Page No.# 3/8 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and to prove that the petitioner is not a foreigner, the petitioner had only filed his written statement and thereafter, failed to appear in the proceedings and accordingly, after having the petitioner absent on call on various dates, the learned Tribunal by an order dated 02.06.2016, rejected the prayer for adjournment and by passing a separate order, the reference was disposed of against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the opinion dated 02.06.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhyapuri, in Case No. BNGN/ FT-2/APR/375/2009, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court by an order dated 25.02.2020, passed in WP(C)/7836/2017, for ends of justice, granted one opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings on merit. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.03.2020 and to take steps. 4. The order sheet reveals that on 18.03.2020, the petitioner was allowed to file evidence-on-affidavit and his prayer for time to file evidence of DW-2 was allowed. Owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, the matter was adjourned on 02.06.2020, 10.08.2020, 21.12.2020, 10.09.2021, and on those dates the petitioner was absent without steps and the matter was adjourned as last chance for DW-2. On 06.12.2021, the petitioner remained absent and he was present on 07.04.2022, but when the matter was called, neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel was present and they were found absent and therefore, matter had to be adjourned to 01.06.2022 for cross-examination of DW-1. The petitioner as DW-1 remained absent on 01.06.2022, 07.07.2022, 20.08.2022, 22.09.2022, 02.11.2022, 15.12.2022, 26.12.2022 and on the said date the a fresh opinion was passed by the learned Tribunal, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. In the present writ petition, there is no explanation as to the default on the part of the petitioner for appearing in the Page No.# 4/8 proceedings before the learned Tribunal. 5. Therefore, in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to explain why he failed to take steps in the proceedings despite the order dated 25.02.2020, passed in WP(C)/7836/2017, in the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned opinion does not warrant any interference. However, as the issue of citizenship is involved, the Court proceeded to examine the decision of the learned Tribunal which had, despite the absence of the petitioner, examined the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in his evidence-on-affidavit. The documents exhibited by the petitioner by way of his evidence-on-affidavit are as follows:- i. NRC 1951- Ext.1 ii. Legacy Data-Ext.2 iii. Voter list of 1966-Ext.3 iv. Voter list of 1970-Ext.4 v. Voter list of 1985-Ext.5 vi. Voter list of 1989-Ext.6 vii. Voter list of 1997-Ext.7 viii. Voter list of 2008-Ext.8 ix. Voter list of 2014-Ext.9 x. Voter list of 2015-Ext.10 xi. Bank Account-Ext.11 6. On an examination of the documentary evidence, it is noticed that Ext.1 and 2 are the NRC of 1951 in respect of the projected parents of the petitioner along with his brothers and sisters and Ext.2 is the legacy data of his projected mother of 1966. However, so far as Ext.1 is concerned, it is a certificate issued by the Officer-in-Charge of Bagbar P.S. but the petitioner has not examined the author of the said certificate and the original documents were Page No.# 5/8 also called for. Ext.2 is the NRC of 1966, which is evidently a image ID which is computer generated and the said document is not supported by an certificate of electronic evidence as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. 7. The voters in the voter list of 1966 are Ahatan Nesa, wife of Asaruddin, aged 40 years and Ahed Ali, son of Asaruddin, aged 21 years. However, the said voters are of village-Khudrakhowa under 51 No. Jania LAC and the voters in the voter list of 1970 are Ahatan Nesa, wife of Asaruddin, aged 25 years and the voter no. 2 is Ahed Ali, son of Asaruddin aged 25 years, earlier voters of Khudrakhowa village. The voters in the voter list of 1985 consists of 9 (nine) voters with voter no.1 being Ahatan Bewa, wife of Asiruddin, aged 55 years and the voter no.2 is Ahed Ali, son of Asiruddin, aged 35 years. For reasons assigned later, the names of the other 7 (seven) voters of the voter list of 1985 are not referred to herein. It may be stated that the said voters of the 1985 voter list are of village-198 Santoshpur Part-III, under Abhyapuri P.S, North Salmara Sub-Division, District-Goalpara. The 2 (two) voters in the voter list of 1989 are Nazar Ali, Son of Late Asir Uddin, aged 30 years and Maleka Khatun, wife of Nazar Ali, aged 25 years which were voters of 198 no. Santoshpur Part-III. The said 2 (two) persons are also voters of the voter list of 1997 of 193 no. Sontoshpur Part-III. They are also voters of the voter list of 2008 of the same village. In the voter list of 2014 (Ext.9) the 3 (three) voters are Nazor Ali, aged 53 years son of Asir Uddin, Habija Khatun, aged 27 years wife of Nazor Ali and Alim Uddin son of Nazor Ali. In the voter list of 2015, there are 5 (five) voters and 3 (three) vote of the voter list of 2008 are also voters. The other 2 (two) voters are not referred to in this order and would be referred to later on in this order. Ext.11 is the first page of the bank pass book of the petitioner, which is discloses that the bank pass book was only issued on Page No.# 6/8 21.09.2014. 8. As indicated earlier, in the written statement, the petitioner has not disclosed the name of all his family members and he has specifically not referred to any names of family members but it was not stated his projected father and his father is an listed in the NRC of 1951 as Asuruddin and the name of his mother is disclosed in the voter list of 1966 as Ahatan Nessa. Therefore, in the absence of pleadings, therefore, no purpose would be served to refer to the 7 (seven) voters whose names were reflected in the voters list of 1985 and 2 (two) voters whose names were was not reflected earlier in the voter list of 2015. The family of the petitioner is not together in any document and in that regard the petitioner has taken stand in the evidence-on-affidavit that he was born in the year 1957 and has 5 (five) brothers namely, Kahas Ali, Ahed Ali, Nazar Ali, Inzaar Ali, Forman Ali and 3 (three) sisters and his sisters have got married and out of his brothers 2 (two) brothers, namely, Kahas Ali and Forman Ali expired in the year 1958 and 2010 respectively. He has stated that the age of his brother Ahed Ali is wrongly recorded in the voter list of 1985 and has taken the stand that in the year 1988, he was separated and partitioned with his mother and brother and his name appeared separately in the voter list of 1989 of village Sontoshpur Part-III. To overcome the name of 2 (two) females appearing as voters in the voters list of 1997 and 2008, the petitioner has taken a stand that his first wife has expired and his second wife’s name appeared in the voters list of 2008, 2014 and 2015. 9. Thus, the save and except the voters lists, there are no other document to show the name of the petitioner with his projected parents and/ or mother. Page No.# 7/8 10. It is too well settled that the entries made in the voter list of is not a proof of citizenship if any authority on the point is required, one may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Aziz Miya @ Aziz Mia vs. Union of India and Ors., (2023) 4 GLT 246. 11. The said decision would apply in the present case and the voters in all the exhibited voter’s list is inconsistent and the entire family is not seen together. Even if the family is separated, their existence in the State is not proved by cogent and admissible evidence. Accordingly, on an appreciation of the pleadings and evidence-on-record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had passed the opinion with due consideration regarding the entire facts, pleadings and evidence-on-record. The learned Tribunal is found to have not discarded the evidence merely because the petitioner did not appear for his cross-examination. The learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence on record and found that no case has been made out by the petitioner to hold him as citizen of India. In this case there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It may also be stated that this Court in its order dated 25.02.2020, passed in WP(C)/7836/2017, had issued a specific direction that the learned Tribunal shall conclude the proceedings within 45 (forty five) days from 18.03.2020, and it was made clear that if the petitioner defaults in appearing before the learned Tribunal on 18.03.2020 or evades filing of evidence-on-affidavit, it shall be open to the learned Tribunal to pass such order as it may deem fit and proper. Nonetheless, yet the learned Tribunal gave sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to appear and face cross-examination and to produce DW-2 as his witness, but the petitioner had failed to appear for his cross-examination. Therefore, technically the evidence of the petitioner should have been expunged. Nonetheless, the learned Tribunal, still considered Page No.# 8/8 the same. 12. Accordingly, in light of the discussion and finding as referred above, the Court has not found any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 13. Consequences of the said opinion dated 26.12.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri, shall follow. 14. The Registry is directed to return back the Tribunals records along with a copy of the order to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal. 15. The learned standing counsel for the Border and FT mattes shall send a downloaded copy of order to the concerned authorities for their record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant