Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010284462025 2026:GAU-AS:2320-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7411/2025 NASIMUDDIN S/O LATE YASIK ALI SHEIKH. R/O VILL.- DALGAON KHUTI P.O. AND P.S.-- DALGAON DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-01. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01 INDIA. 4:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI -05 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG Page No.# 2/8 MONGALDAI DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM. PIN- 784115 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DARRANG DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. PIN- 78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS K TAYE, MS. M KHATUN,MR A ALI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 17.02.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. T.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.3; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 22.08.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. F.T.(V) 2210/2016, arising out of S.P. Enquiry No. 6274/98, whereby the petitioner, namely, Nasimuddin was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. This writ petition, to assail the opinion dated 22.08.2019, has Page No.# 3/8 been filed on 17.12.2025, i.e. after 6 years, 3 months, 25 day (or 2309 days). Accordingly, before issuing notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to explain the delay in assailing the opinion dated 22.08.2019, by filing this writ petition on 19.12.2025, has submitted that after the opinion was rendered on 22.08.2019, the petitioner was taken into custody and during Covid-19 Pandemic period, he was released on bail 24.03.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner was under the impression that he was acquitted. Thereafter, the petitioner was again taken into custody on 25.05.2025 and kept at the Transit camp, Matia, Goalpara. Thereafter, the petitioner’s son had filed a writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, which was registered as W.P.(C) 6823/2025, which was subsequently withdrawn and the present writ petition was filed. 5. It has been submitted that the petitioner has all the documents which prove that he is a citizen of India, but due to poverty and lack of knowledge of legal procedures, the petitioner was under the impression that with his release on 24.03.2022, he was acquitted. 6. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner deserves to be heard in this writ petition, otherwise his valuable citizenship right would be extinguished if the opinion is not interfered with. 7. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that there is a substantial delay in assailing the impugned opinion, which cannot be condoned and/or ignored on account of delay and laches. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Page No.# 4/8 Border matters has opposed the prayer for admitting this writ petition for hearing and for granting bail to the petitioner. 8. On perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed to the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner, in support of his claim of being an Indian citizen has exhibited the following documents, viz., NRC of 1951 (Ext.1); NRC of 1951 issued by Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind (Ext.2); Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) of one Jashimuddin, his projected brother (Ext.3); EPIC of his projected mother (Ext.4); application of inclusion of name in NRC dated 20.08.2015 (Ext.5); and application of inclusion of name in NRC dated 10.08.2015 (Ext.6); certificate dated 17.04.2018, issued by Gaonburah (Ext.7). 9. In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters had submitted that the NRC print-out of 1951 was prepared under the Census Act, 1948, which is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 15 of the said Act. Moreover, by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Mojid @ Modid Ali v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 6090/2016, decided on 15.03.2018, this Court had held that NRC statements at this stage is not admissible because NRC updation process is only at the draft stage. Moreover, by relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Ahitan Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 6443/2017, decided on 19.12.2017, it was submitted that this Court had held that the NRC legacy data, besides being inadmissible evidence, is a computer generated statement and thus, Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 would be applicable. 10. Thus, the only documents exhibited by the petitioner are the NRC legacy data of 1951 (Ext.1 and Ext.2) and the acknowledgement of receipt of application for NRC (Ext.5 and Ext.6), which, as per the decisions cited by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, are inadmissible in evidence. Ext.3 and Ext.4 are EPIC Page No.# 5/8 and in that regard, it may be stated that this Court in the case of Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 3547/16, decided on 09.05.2018, has held that EPIC is not a valid piece of evidence in absence of supporting evidence. In any case, they are post reference documents. The certificate issued by the Gaonburah (Ext.7), was not proved by examining the author. Therefore, the documents exhibited by the petitioner are not found to help him to establish that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Thus, the petitioner is found to have failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 of proving that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. 11. The Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 46 of the case of Urban Improvement Trust (supra), has reiterated the law that undue delay in approaching the Court can be a ground for refusing relief and it has been expressed that only in exceptional cases, delay can be condoned. The said paragraph 46 is quoted below:- “46. As regards the appellant’s challenge to the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing of the writ petitions by the respondents, we are of the view that the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is true that the courts have consistently held that undue delay in approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the delay must be condoned.” 12. In respect of the legal proposition that delay and laches is fatal to a belated challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Jonali Das v. Union of India, 2018 (5) GLT 492: (2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1186. Paragraph 9 thereof is as follows:- “9. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.4971/2018, disposed of on 01.08.2018], this Court had observed as follows:- "It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person Page No.# 6/8 who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners." 13. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme(SC) 1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court, when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion. 14. Moreover, this Court, in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India, (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, had held to the effect that the plea of compliance with the principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners. A similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813. 15. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In paragraph 63, the Supreme Court of India had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external Page No.# 7/8 aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. 16. The stand of the petitioner that on being released on bail on 24.03.2022, he was under the impression that he was acquitted, cannot be accepted as a good and sufficient cause to condone the delay of more than 6 years in assailing the impugned opinion. Moreover, on examination of the pleadings and evidence, including the documentary evidence, which are referred to above, the petitioner is found to have failed in discharging his burden of proof, as cast upon the petitioner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. 17. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails on merit as the documents exhibited by the petitioner do not help the petitioner to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. Moreover, the reasons assigned for the delay of 6 years, 3 months, 25 days (or 2309 days) are not at all satisfactory on any count. Therefore, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed on account of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of 6 years, 3 months, 25 days (or 2309 days) in assailing the opinion dated 22.08.2009, by filing this writ petition on 17.12.2025. 18. Thus, the challenge to the impugned opinion dated 22.08.2019, Page No.# 8/8 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. F.T.(V) 2210/2016, arising out of S.P. Enquiry No. 6274/98, fails and this writ petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 19. There shall be no order as to cost. 20. The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of the record of the learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant