Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010068062026 2026:GAU-AS:5218 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1998/2026 JAKIR HUSSAIN ALIAS JAKIR MIYA S/O JAMAL MIYA ALIAS JAMAL, VILL. BELARTARI, P.O. BORGHOL, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O AND P.S- BARPETA ASSAM 6:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BARPETA Page No.# 2/3 P.O AND P.S- BARPETA ASSAM. 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR A HAQUE,MR T T MONI,MS. M CHETRY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 07.04.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India [ECI] for the respondent no. 2; Mr. M. Chetia, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 5 & 6; and Ms. N.S. Rajkhowa, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home and FT/NRC for the respondent nos. 4 & 7. 2. The petitioner has stated that the name of his parents have been enrolled in the Electoral Rolls pertaining to No. 50 Barpeta Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC] published in the years 1966, 1870, 1985 and 1989. In all the Electoral Rolls, the address of the parents of the petitioner was shown as Village – Belotari, P.O. – Borghol, P.S.- Barpeta, District – Barpeta, Assam. The petitioner has claimed that in some of the Electoral Rolls published in 1985, 1989, 1997, 2010 and 2015, the names of his brothers along with his parents have also been enrolled. Though the name of the petitioner was included in the Electoral Roll of 1997 as well as in the subsequent Electoral Rolls, ‘D’ voter mark has been put against him. In the recent Electoral Roll of 2025, the same position has subsisted. 3. With a projection that the respondent authorities had failed to do the needful, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction that the ‘D’ Voter tagged with the name of the petitioner in the Electoral Roll/Voters List be removed. Page No.# 3/3 4. Whether a person is a ‘D’ Voter or not is a matter of factual determination and the appropriate forum to do the same is the concerned Foreigners Tribunal. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not embark on a fact finding exercise to decide such a question which depends on the evidence that may be produced. 5. In the circumstances, this Court therefore directs the respondent no. 7 i.e. the Superintendent of Police [Border], Barpeta to verify as to whether the petitioner has already been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal and if upon verification, it is found that the petitioner has not been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, this Court further directs the respondent no. 7 to refer the case of the petitioner as regards the mark ‘D’ in the Electoral Roll/Voters List in respect to No. 50 Barpeta LAC to a competent Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta district for an appropriate adjudication as regards the status of the petitioner as ‘D’ Voter in the concerned Electoral Roll/Voters List. 6. Reference be made within a period of 2 [two] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such reference being made, the petitioner may participate in such proceedings and establish his case. 7. If the case of the petitioner as per the records had already been referred to the relevant Foreigners Tribunal, there would be no requirement to make any further reference and the detailed information of the earlier reference be communicated to the petitioner. 8. With the above directions and observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant