Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010054322022 2026:GAU- AS:14775-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1998/2022 MD. HAZARAT ALI S/O. LT. ATAR ALI, VIIL. KEYAMARA SONARIGAON, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784161. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS TO BE REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPTT., NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, 110001. 2:STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) LAKIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001. 4:STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005. 5:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Page No.# 2/6 NEW DELHI 110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN, MR. M H SAIKIA,MR. N I MAZARBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 01.10.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. N.H. Mazarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. N. Kalita on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC, Assam. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 29.01.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-1st, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam, in Lakhimpur F.T. (1st) Case No. 2024/11, vide District No.56/2000, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. Upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement stating that he is a citizen of India and possesses an Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC, for short); wherein his father's name has been wrongly recorded as Afatar Ali instead of his Page No.# 3/6 correct name, Atar Ali. He stated that he is a resident of Village – Borsola, Mouza - Nowboisa under P.S North Lakhimpur, District - Lakhimpur. He shifted to Village - Sonarigaon under Bihpuria P.S in the District of Lakhimpur about 25 years ago in search of work and thereafter became a permanent resident of the said village. He stated that he has five siblings. He is married to Sakina Begum about 28 years ago and after 3 years of marriage, he shifted to Sonarigaon near to his father-in-law’s house. He is working as a rickshaw puller at Bihpuria. 4. The petitioner had also annexed a copy of his PAN card as well as a copy of his ration card in support of his written statement. He has two daughters, namely, (i) Anjuma Begum (married) and (ii) Hasina Begum (married) and two sons, namely, (i) Nasir Ali and (ii) Idris Ali. His father had died about 30-32 years ago and his name appeared in the Electoral Roll of Lakhimpur district about 30 years ago. He had annexed uncertified copies of the voter lists along with his written statement. It was stated that the names of his parents appeared in the voter lists of 1965 and 1971, copies of which were annexed along with his written statement. He claimed that his father owned land in Borsola village in the year 1969. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an amended written statement stating that he had six siblings, namely, (i) Hatem Ali, (ii) Rustom Ali, (iii) Abdul Hekim, (iv) Asmat Ali, (v) Firuja Begum and (vi) Akbar Ali. The rest of the statements made in the written statement were reiterated and he had also stated that he was born in the year 1968. 5. It appears from the records of the learned Tribunal that, in support of his defence, the petitioner had exhibited his EPIC as Ext.1, ration card as Ext.2, certified copy of the voter list of 1965 as Ext.3, certified copy of the voter list of 1971 as Ext.4 and certified copy of the voter list of 1970 as Ext.5. The petitioner had also examined one Abdul Hekim, his projected brother, as DW-2, who Page No.# 4/6 produced his EPIC to establish the relationship, which was exhibited as Ext.6. He reiterated the statements made by the petitioner in his evidence. However, upon further examination of the records of the learned Tribunal, it is seen that, contrary to the documents mentioned in the evidence-on-affidavit of DW-1 and DW-2, the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1965 has been exhibited as Ext.1, the Electoral Roll of 1970 as Ext.2, and the EPIC of the petitioner as Ext.3. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the claim of the petitioner that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner, submitted that the documents exhibited by the petitioner contain the name of Atar Ali, the petitioner's projected father. It is submitted that, as the petitioner had examined Hazrat Ali as DW-2, his brother, whose father's name was Atar Ali, the petitioner has been able to establish that he is the son of Atar Ali and, therefore, a citizen of India. 7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Border and F.T. matters has submitted that the mere production of the Electoral Rolls of 1965 and 1970 would not be sufficient to establish the petitioner's citizenship, in the absence of any document connecting the petitioner with his projected father. 8. It is further submitted that the EPIC of his projected brother, DW-2, cannot be considered as proof of citizenship, as it is a post-reference document prepared in the year 2013. It is also submitted that, in his cross-examination, which is available in the records of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner admitted that he had not been able to exhibit any documents other than Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. He also admitted that as per the police reference, his Country of origin was Bangladesh and further admitted that all his ancestors came from Bangladesh. Accordingly, it is submitted that, as the petitioner has not been able to produce Page No.# 5/6 any document to establish his presence in the Country prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971, the impugned opinion does not warrant any interference. 9. Upon consideration of the materials available on record, specifically the evidence which is available in the Tribunal's records, the petitioner had actually exhibited only 3(three) documents. Ext.1 is the Electoral Roll of 1965, Ext.2 is the Electoral Roll of 1971 and Ext.3 is the EPIC of Hazrat Ali. Therefore, there is no document showing the presence of the petitioner along with his projected parents or with his projected brother (DW-2). The petitioner has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that in the police reference, his original Country was Bangladesh and he has also admitted that his ancestors came from Bangladesh. With that evidence which has come on record in the cross-examination, the Court is unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner had not exhibited all the documents which were referred to as exhibits in his evidence-on-affidavit and also in the evidence-on-affidavit of DW-2. 10. Thus, the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence that the petitioner’s forefathers had come from Bangladesh, as stated by the petitioner in his cross-examination. In the absence of any other document connecting the petitioner with his projected parents or siblings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned opinion does not warrant any interference. It is settled position of law that an oral evidence is not sufficient to prove that the suspect is an Indian citizen. In this case the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to plead and prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Page No.# 6/6 12. The consequences of the impugned opinion dated 29.01.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-1st, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam, in Lakhimpur F.T. (1st) Case No. 2024/11, vide District No.56/2000, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, shall follow. 13. The Registry shall return back the records received from the concerned learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel for the Border and FT matters shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned respondent authorities for information and for doing the needful. The parties shall bear their own costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant