Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010197722025 2026:GAU-AS:3930-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5211/2025 ABDUL ALI @ ABDUL NOOR S/O LATE MABAT ALI @ MAHBAT ALI, R/O VILL- SHINGARIJAN BAGAN, P.S.- MORANHAT, DIST- CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN-785670 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 4:THE ASSAM STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEO DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-785691 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) CHARAIDEO DIST- CHARAIDEO Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM PIN-78569 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MS. K DAS,MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 17.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT matters, Border and NRC; Ms. M. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for ECI; 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, namely, Abdul Ali @ Abdul Noor, has assailed the opinion dated 31.03.2005, passed by the learned Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Jorhat in IM(D)T Case No. JDT. 38/2000, [arising out of Police Enquiry No.595/99], by which the petitioner was declared to be an illegal migrant within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. 3) The materials available in the Tribunal’s record reveal that upon service of notice on the petitioner, he had filed his written statement on 17.09.2002. The State examined PW1 on 09.01.2003. However, no evidence was Page No.# 3/7 led by the petitioner, which resulted in an opinion dated 11.06.2003 by the said learned Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Jorhat [IM(D)T, Jorhat for short]. 4) Thereafter, on an application made by the petitioner, he was allowed to contest the proceedings, and the petitioner examined himself as DW1 on 28.01.2005. Apart from giving oral evidence, the petitioner did not exhibit any document. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal, on examining the materials available on record, held that Md. Abdul Ali is an illegal migrant within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the IM(D)T Act, 1983, and accordingly, the reference was answered. 5) Thereafter, the petitioner was taken into custody on 01.11.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the orders of bail passed by the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner was released on 18.04.2020. However, the petitioner was again taken into custody on 25.05.2025. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed to assail the said opinion dated 31.03.2005. 6) In this writ petition, it is projected that the petitioner and his family members are suffering from financial hardship, for which the said opinion dated 31.03.2005 could not be challenged. It is projected that the petitioner is an illiterate person having no knowledge about the proceedings and, moreover, he was not informed or communicated of the opinion dated 31.03.2005 by his learned counsel. Accordingly, it is alleged that due to lack of proper guidance, the petitioner could not assail the said opinion. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this writ petition, he has annexed documents including the voters list of 1966, NRC Page No.# 4/7 of 1966, voters list of 1970, 1989, 1997, 2005, and 2015, to project that the name of the petitioner and his family members appeared in the voters list. Reliance is also placed on the Panchayat Certificate dated 16.09.2002 and the Gaonburah Certificate dated 08.11.2016. 8) It is also projected in this writ petition that the inquiry made against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police was not a proper inquiry and, based on vague statements, the reference was made against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is projected that the impugned opinion was mechanically passed without proper application of judicial mind. The petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned opinion. 9) The learned standing counsel for FT matters, Border and NRC has opposed prayer for interference with the impugned opinion. 10) From the materials available on record, the projection by the petitioner that his name appeared in the voters list of 1966 cannot be said to constitute sufficient evidence to prove that the person whose name appeared in the voters list of 1966 is the petitioner and he is a citizen of India. 11) In this regard, the Court takes notice of the copy of the affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 30.09.2002, which is available at pages 58-59 and 60-61 of the Tribunal’s record, purportedly filed by the petitioner, wherein he had disclosed his age as 50 years in the said affidavit sworn on 30.09.2002. As per the disclosure made in the said affidavit, the year of birth of the petitioner would be 1952. Therefore, his right to franchise at the age of 21 years would only arise after 1973. 12) As per the order sheet of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the said learned Tribunal on 25.06.2002 and prayed for time to Page No.# 5/7 file a written statement. The said affidavit dated 30.09.2002 was sworn after the petitioner was served with a notice to appear and contest the proceedings before the IM(D)T. 13) During the examination-in-chief of the petitioner on 28.01.2005, the petitioner disclosed his name only as Abdul Ali and he did not exhibit any documentary evidence. He was cross-examined and discharged. As per his evidence-in-chief, the petitioner claims to have arrived at Singarijan from Karimganj about 30-35 years back, when his age was 25 years, and got married to one Noorjahan of Sivasagar and started residing in the house of his father-in- law, where three children were born. He projects that his father-in-law had sold his landed property. As a result, he came with his family members to Rangalu Moran, where he started staying in a temporary house on the land of an oil company. He claims to have voted two or three times and later on his name was cancelled from the voters list as a Bangladeshi. Thus, even in his oral evidence in his examination-in-chief, the petitioner does not claim to have cast his vote in the year 1966, as projected in this writ petition. 14) Under the circumstances, it was not open for the petitioner to accuse his learned counsel, who appeared for him before the learned Tribunal, of not giving proper legal advice. The petitioner, on receipt of notice of the learned Tribunal, was aware that he was accused of being an illegal migrant, yet no documentary evidence was exhibited. 15) Be that as it may, in this case, the opinion was rendered by the learned Tribunal on 31.03.2005, and this writ petition was filed on 29.08.2025, i.e., after 20 years, 4 months, and 29 days (or 7456 days). Having appeared before the learned Tribunal and contested the proceedings by filing a written statement and filing evidence-on-affidavit, it is not open to the petitioner to Page No.# 6/7 claim that he was not aware of the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal on 31.03.2005, because then he would be negligent as it was his duty to find out what had happened in the case. 16) Assuming that the petitioner was not aware of the opinion dated 31.03.2005, as per his own statement, he was taken into custody on 01.11.2016 and thereafter, released on 18.04.2020 and again taken into custody on 25.05.2025. Thus, when he was arrested on 01.11.2016, the petitioner was definitely aware of the reason for being taken into custody. Therefore, the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to assail the impugned opinion is apparent on the face of the record. 17) The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India and Others (2005) 5 SCC 665, has equated the influx of people from a specified territory to an act of external aggression. Therefore, in this case, despite the opinion dated 31.03.2005, the petitioner has been able to prolong his stay in the Country for more than 21 years without assailing the said opinion dated 31.03.2005, which was assailed by filing this writ petition on 29.08.2025. 18) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is currently more than 80 years of age. The age of the petitioner would not deter the Court to uphold the said opinion so that the consequences of the opinion would follow. 19) In view of the discussions above, on merit, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the impugned opinion suffers from any perversity or illegality. The inordinate delay and laches, which has not been properly explained in this writ petition. Page No.# 7/7 20) Accordingly, the exercise of jurisdiction under certiorari jurisdiction, it is not open for the Court to substitute its view against the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal after appreciating the materials available on record. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 21) The consequences of the opinion of the learned Tribunal shall follow. 22) The Registry shall return back the records to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal for future reference. 23) 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. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant