Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010129352025 2026:GAU-AS:990-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3571/2025 MALINA BEGUM W/O MD ALI HUSSAIN D/O LT RAMJAN ALI R/O TILOIBARI BLOCK PS MORAN DIST DIBRUGARH ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH DIST DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POILICE (B) DIBRUGARAH DIST DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786001 6:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM PO AND PS BHANGAGHAR GUWAHATI 5 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA,MR A HAWARI,MS M Page No.# 2/9 NIROLA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 27.01.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Hawari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; 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, namely, Malina Begum, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 25.05.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Dibrugarh 1st, in F.T. Case No. 1490/2010, corresponding to P.E. No. 170/10, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 1971 stream. 3. On receipt of the notice of the proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement, inter alia, stating that she was born at Deopani Tea Estate in the year 1979 and studied in Deopani Grant K.B.M.E. School in the district of Sivasagar, and that her parents were permanent residents and her father was a permanent worker of Deopani Tea Estate under Geleki Police Station and was affiliated to Assam Cha Mazdoor Page No.# 3/9 Sangha. She was married to Md. She was married to Md. Ali Hussain of Tiloi Bari Block, under Moran Police Station in the district of Dibrugarh, and started to live at her matrimonial home and was enrolled as a voter under Moran constituency. 4. In support of her defence, the petitioner had examined herself as DW- 1. She had also examined her mother, Smt. Maijan Begum as DW2. While reiterating the statements made in the written statement, the petitioner in her examination-in-chief stated that her father was Late Ramjan Ali, an employee of Deopani Tea Estate, and that her father's name is recorded in the official record of Deopani Tea Estate. On attaining majority, the name of her father was enrolled in the voters list of 1970 of 108 No. Nazira LAC. Her grandfather was Rosna Ali, who had landed property in his name at village- Nopam Banoti in the district of Sivasagar, and her father had paid the land revenue on behalf of her grandfather for the year 1970-1971 on 31.01.1971. Her mother is Maijan Begum, whose name was entered in the voters list of 1970 of 108 No. Nazira LAC. She was born and brought up at Deopani Tea Estate and studied in the school referred to above up to Class- VII. On attaining majority, she was married to Md. Ali Hussain of Tiloi Bari Block in the district of Dibrugarh, where she is presently residing. After marriage, her name was enrolled in the voters list of Tiloi Bari Block under Moran constituency, and the concerned Electoral Registration Officer had issued a voter ID card in her name. She has a PAN card, and her mother was stated to be alive. She had stated to have two brothers and sisters, including herself and Md. Rahaman Ali. One FT case was instituted against her husband, but not against her parents, uncle, aunt, brothers, etc. She had denied that she came into Assam from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. She has three children out of the wedlock. She had exhibited the Page No.# 4/9 following documents: i. The Legacy Data Code – 360-3006-5884 (vote Year 1970) in the name of father of the O.P. as Ext.A. ii. The Legacy Data Code – 360-3006-5951 (vote Year 1970) in the name of mother of the O.P. as Ext.B. iii. The land revenue receipt in the name of Rosna Ali for the year 1970- 1971 dated 31.01.1971 as Ext.C. iv. The certificate issued in the name of her father Ramjan Ali by the Manager of Deopani Tea Estate as Ext.D. v. The School Certificate in the name of the O.P. issued by the Head Master of Deopain Grant K.B.M.E. School, Deopani as Ext.E. vi. The Certificate issued by the Secretary, Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha, Nazira Branch in the name of Maijan Begum, the mother of the O.P. as Ext.F. vii. The Local Man Certificate in the name of the O.P. issued by the Gaonburah, Mani Pather, Kaki Pather, Tiloibari Block, Tiloibari Nepali Bengali Gaon as Ext.G. viii. The Voter Id in the name of the O.P. as Ext.H. ix. The PAN Card in the name of O.P. as Ext.I. x. The Birth Certificate in the name of the O.P. as Ext.J. 5. It would be relevant to extract hereinbelow the statements made by the petitioner during her cross-examination: “I have not mentioned in my W.S. filed on 09.09.2014 about Ext.A, B and J. Almost all the exhibited documents submitted by me are issued after 1971. Except Ext.C, there are no any documents in the name of my father and grandfather. In Ext.A, my father’s name appeared as Ramjan instead of Ramjan Ali. It is not a fact that I have not submitted any documents in which my grandfather’s name appeared as Rosna Ali. I have never seen my grandfather. At the time of death of my father, I was a girl of eight years old. Though my father casted vote in the year 1966, I have not filed my voter list of the year 1966. Prior 1971, I have no landed document either in the name of father or grandfather. There are no document in my name or in the name of my parents, namely, Passport, PRC, Insurance document or any other Govt. Document. Except Ext.C, I have not filed any link document of my father with my grandfather. It is not a fact that I am a foreign national and to prove my nationality has filed false documents.” Page No.# 5/9 6. Smti. Maijan Begum, the projected mother of the petitioner was examined as DW-2. She has reiterated the statements made by the petitioner in respect of the petitioner being her daughter and her husband being working at Deopani Tea Estate and that the petitioner had studied in the school referred to above. She had exhibited her identity card as Elector Photo Identity Card as Ext.K. In her cross-examination, she had stated that she had appeared before the learned Tribunal at the request of the petitioner. She had not filed any document to prove her linkage with Malina Begum. She had denied that the petitioner or her father was not born in Deopani Tea Estate. She had denied that the petitioner had never studied in the school referred to above or that Ext.K is a false document. She had also denied that the petitioner is a foreign national or that she had deposed falsely before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Tribunal, having perused the pleadings and the evidence on record, gave a finding that the Ext.J was not proved by the issuing authority and was not admissible in evidence. Ext.A and Ext.B were discussed and discarded on the ground that those were only computer generated copies, not accompanied by any certificate from the concerned authority, and were not admissible in evidence. Ext.C was discarded as land revenue paid receipt does not determine the Indian nationality of the father of the petitioner. Ext.D, Ext.E, and Ext.F were also discarded as the issuing authority had not proved the documents. Similarly, Ext.G was discarded as the issuing authority had not exhibited the same. Ext.H, Ext.I, and Ext.K were discarded as those were documents not issued before 1971 or between 1966 and 1971. Accordingly, it was held that depending on those documents, the petitioner could not prove that she was an Indian citizen. Accordingly, the opinion was issued in favor of Page No.# 6/9 the reference and against the petitioner, holding her to be a foreigner of post 1971. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the petitioner had documents to connect her to the projected parents and grandfather, the proceeding was not appropriately conducted before the learned Foreigners Tribunal. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the electoral roll of 1970 to project that the voters list of the year 1970 discloses the presence of the father of the petitioner in the certified copy of the electoral roll of the year 1970 of village Deopani in the district of Sivasagar. By referring to the land revenue paid receipt, it was submitted that the same was paid on 31.01.1971, which is prior to the cutoff date of 25.03.1971, and which discloses the presence of the father of the petitioner within the State of Assam. The petitioner also relies on the NRC disclosing the voting year of 1970 in the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Ramjan, and Maijan, wife of Ramjan. Accordingly, it was submitted that as the petitioner did not bring the issuing authorities of several exhibits to prove the document, or the certified copy of the voters list of 1970 containing the names of the father and mother of the petitioner, this is a fit and proper case for remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce those documents in accordance with law. It was submitted that the High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue such directions for the ends of justice as the fundamental right of the petitioner had been curtailed. 9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has referred to the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2 to submit that the Page No.# 7/9 petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference with the impugned opinion. Insofar as the power of the Court under certiorari jurisdiction is concerned, he places reliance on the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. v. Bikartan Das & Ors., 2023 INSC 733: (2023) 0 Supreme (SC) 763, which laid down the law relating to the extent of interference that can be done by the High Court, limiting interference only when there is an error apparent on the face of record or if the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. It was submitted that as no case is made out by the petitioner, no interference with the opinion is called for. 10. We have examined the records of the learned Tribunal and considered the submissions made at the bar. We have also examined the case law cited by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters. 11. Having examined the TCR, we have taken note of the fact that the document marked as Ext.J is a birth certificate issued by the Deopani Tea Estate Hospital on 13.08.2016, by which it has been certified that the information contained therein has been taken from the original record of birth, registered at the hospital of Deopani Tea Estate. In the said certificate, it is stated to the effect that Miss Malina Begum was born on 20.12.1983 at Deopani Tea Estate Hospital and her mother is Miss Maijan Begum and her father is Late Ramjan Ali. Therefore, as per the said document, on the date of birth of the petitioner, her father had already died. In her cross-examination, the petitioner has stated that at the time of death of her father, she was a girl of 8 years of age. Therefore, the oral evidence appears to be contrary to the contents of Ext.J. However, contrary to the contents of Annexure-6 to the petition (page 24), this is a certificate by the Manager of Deopani Tea Estate stating that Late Ramjan Page No.# 8/9 Ali had expired on 21.12.1985 as per the death register. However, the said death certificate has not been proved by the petitioner regarding the date of death of her father. Thus, the contents of Ext.J puts a doubt to the fact that as to whether the father of the petitioner was alive at the time of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner had left the Deopani Grant K.B.M.E. School on 31.12.1992. However, her father's name is not shown as a deceased person, rather, the name of the father is mentioned as Md. Ramjan Ali. 12. Be that as it may, in view of the admission made by the petitioner in her cross-examination that almost all the documents exhibited by her were issued after 1971, except Ext.C and except Ext.C, there is no document in the name of her father and grandfather. In view of the admission made by the projected father of the petitioner in her cross-examination that she has not filed any document to prove her linkage with the petitioner, the Court is of the considered opinion that from the exhibited documents read with the cross- examination of DW-1 and DW-2, the petitioner has failed to prove her linkage to her projected parents, and the projected grandfather. 13. Insofar as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter can be remanded back by allowing the petitioner to adduce fresh written statement and evidence, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Bikartan Das (supra), as the Court does not find any perversity in the opinion to set aside the opinion of the learned Tribunal, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has not failed to take notice of any pleadings or documents and that the learned Tribunal has not passed the opinion based on any extraneous materials or unexhibited documents. Page No.# 9/9 14. Page No.# 9/9 14. It is not a case where the petitioner had desired and taken steps to prove Ext.A, Ext.B, Ext.E, Ext.F, Ext.G, and Ext.J in accordance with law, which was refused by the learned Tribunal. No case is made out to remand the matter by giving the petitioner a fresh opportunity for exhibiting those documents. 15. Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned opinion fails and the writ petition is dismissed. The consequences of the impugned opinion would follow. 16. Registry shall be sent back records to the concerned learned Tribunal along with a copy of the order to be made a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant