Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010033832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/996/2026 MAZIBUR RAHMAN S/O LATE ABDUL HASSEN, VILLAGE- AMLAKHI, P.S- BATADRAVA. DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NDE DELHI- 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 788001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 788001 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) Page No.# 2/6 BHANGAGARH PIN- 78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED, B DAS,P. GHOSH,R PARBIN 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 Date : 25-03-2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal and NRC, Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Ms. J. Sarma, learned CGC, and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 25.07.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. FT(6th) 470/2016, corresponding to Reference D Case No. 2130/2009, 84 Batadrava LAC of Nagaon, Assam by which the petitioner, namely, Mazibur Rahman was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream as defined under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. In order to assail the impugned opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the statements made in paragraph-8 of the writ petition has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were waived Page No.# 3/6 and the reference was proceeded without serving on the petitioner the grounds on which he was alleged to be a foreigner. It is submitted that in the written statement only facts were disclosed but the learned Tribunal did not consider the same and moreover, documents and exhibits were rejected without any evidence against the petitioner which includes discarding of the School Certificate (Ext.3), merely on the doubt that the petitioner has not produced the Voters list of 1977 to 1985 which is not mandatory. Accordingly, it is submitted that the School Certificate established the name of the petitioner and his projected father whose name appears on the Voters list of 1965 (Ext.1) and 1970 (Ext.2). 4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, has made an opinion in support of the impugned opinion. 5. In this case, the petitioner in his written statement has stated that his grandfather’s name is Hasmat Ali, whose name is enlisted in the Voters list of 1965 and 1970 and that the name of his father is Abdul Hasain and it was stated that the name of the father appeared in the Voters list of 1977 but in the year 1997 there was a ‘D’ mark against the name of his father and though the name of the petitioner appeared in the Voters list of 2011-2016, against him also a ‘D’ mark was made. 6. In the cross-examination, the petitioner who examined himself as OPW-1, had stated that he was aged 31 years. The said cross-examination was recorded on 05.03.2020, which would make the year of birth of the petitioner as 1989. He had stated that he does not know the date of birth and that his father, Abdul Hasan died about 3 years ago at the age of 60 years, his mother is alive and his grandfather, Hasmat Ali died before his birth. Thus, the existence of the grandfather is admittedly not there since 1989. However, the Voters list of 1965 Page No.# 4/6 (Ext.1), 1970 (Ext.2), contains the name of Hasmat Ali. However, the name of his father is not reflected in any of the said two exhibited Voters list. As per the statement of the petitioner in his cross-examination his father died at the age of 60 years about three years prior to the date of his cross-examination. Therefore, it is presumed that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2017 as the cross-examination was recorded on 05.03.2020 and he died at the age of 60 years, the date of birth of the petitioner’s father would be 1957 and he got the right to vote at the age of 21 years in the year 1978. However, the Voter list of the father’s has not been exhibited. Therefore, there is no connection found between the projected father of the petitioner and the projected grandfather of the petitioner. 7. Similarly, there is no connection between the petitioner and his projected father, save and except the School Certificate (Ext.3). The said School Certificate was not proved by examining the author/ Headmaster along with the school admission register. Therefore, the said Ext.3 is not a reliable document. 8. In the cross-examination the petitioner had further stated that a reference was there against his father during his lifetime and during the pendency of the reference, he died. However, the status and/ or opinion of the said reference has not been brought on record. Similarly, it has been stated that a reference was pending against his mother, Hazera Khatun, before the same learned Tribunal. However, the opinion in the said reference case has also not been brought on record. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the Ext.1 and Ext.2, the petitioner could not prove his link with his projected father and grandfather. It is settled law that only by production of a voters list, it cannot be proved that the person whose name appears in the voters list is the father or grandfather of the petitioner which must be proved by any other cogent and admissible Page No.# 5/6 documentary evidence and oral evidence is not sufficient to prove citizenship or to link the suspected foreigners to his projected parents. 9. It is already stated above, that the School Certificate (Ext.3) has lost its credibility, having not been proved by the author/ Headmaster. 10. No other documents have been exhibited. Therefore, on an independent appreciation of the evidence on record, we arrive at a same conclusion as the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity, perversity in the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the learned Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, no interference against the said opinion dated 25.07.2024 is called for. 13. Thus, this writ petition stands dismissed. 14. The consequences of the opinion dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. FT(6th) 470/2016, corresponding to Reference D Case No. 2130/2009 shall follow. 15. The Registry shall send back the records to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record for future reference. 16. Parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant