Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010261662025 2026:GAU-AS:1742- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./282/2025 BASIRAN NESSA D/O LATE ZAKIR HUSSAIN @ JAGIR, W/O OSMAN GANI, R/O VILL. NIZ NAGAJAN, P.S. KHARUPETIA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF HOME, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DARRANG MANGALDAI. P.O P.S AND DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDAI PO PS AND DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 5:THE FOREIGNER TRIBUNAL 3RD DARRANG MANGALDAI Page No.# 2/10 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, MS. P AHMED,R KHA,MR. N UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : Date: 09.02.2026 (A.M. Kalita, J) Heard Ms. R. Kha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the F.T. and Border matters; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for review of the order dated 21.08.2017, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 4614/2013. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order of the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal (3rd), Darrang, Mangaldoi, dated 21.03.2013, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4614/2013, which was dismissed, vide order dated 21.08.2017, affirming the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 21.03.2013, passed in F.T.(3) Case No. 191/12. Being not satisfied by the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2017, the petitioner filed the review petition which was registered as Review Petition No. 184/2017, praying for review of the order dated 21.08.2017. A Division Bench of this Court, vide it’s order dated 27.11.2017, dismissed the aforesaid review petition. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Page No.# 3/10 way of filing petition being Special Leave to appeal (C) No.(s) 7350/2018, challenging the order dated 27.11.2017, passed in the aforesaid Review Petition No. 184/2017. When the Special Leave to Appeal came up for hearing on 17.01.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer for withdrawal of the same with a liberty to file a fresh review petition before this Court and to produce one NRC document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the prayer of the petitioner and dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh review petition, vide it’s order dated 17.01.2020. Accordingly, the instant review petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court for review of the order dated 21.08.2017. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 7350/2018, challenging the order dated 27.11.2017, passed in review petition No. 184/2017. However, during the pendency of the said Special Leave to Appeal, the Final NRC in Assam has been published, wherein the names of the mother and brother of the petitioner were included. That being an additional document, which was neither before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal nor before the Gauhati High Court, the petitioner prayed for withdrawal for the said Special Leave to Appeal and the same was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide it’s order dated 17.01.2020 with a liberty to file a fresh review petition before this Court. He submits that there are sufficient documents to prove the petitioner’s Indian citizenship, which were overlooked by the learned Tribunal as well as by this Court while rendering the respective orders. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may review the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2017, passed in WP(C) No. 4614/2013 and also set aside the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.03.2023 passed in F.T. (3) Case No. 191/12, passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal (3rd), Darrang, Mangaldoi and in alternative, the case may be remanded back to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal for a fresh decision allowing the petitioner to adduce further evidence in the case. Page No.# 4/10 5. On the other hand, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. & Border matters, submits that the instant review petition has been filed after a long delay of about 6(six) years of passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal. He submits that there is no proper and convincing explanation of the delay has been made by the petitioner in filing the instant review petition. Though the ground of delay has been stated to be the petitioner’s illiteracy coupled with financial problem, she could not approach this Court immediately after passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the same is totally irrelevant for such a long delay. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel submits that this case is hopelessly barred by the principle of delay and laches. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the case of Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2018 (4) GLT 623, wherein this Court has held as under: - “15. 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 who is alleged to be foreigner must 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 a farcical situation and to be an engine to defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners.” 6. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the NRC document which has been annexed to the instant review petition, cannot be taken into account or considered at this stage, as the same is not an admissible document as the Final NRC is yet to be Page No.# 5/10 adopted/accepted by the Registrar General of Citizens Registration to be an admissible piece of document for citizenship. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the instant review petition, having no merit, may be dismissed at once. 7. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also gone through the records of the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. 8. It is seen that the instant review petition has been filed nearly after 6 years of passing of the order dated 17.01.2020, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal, whereby liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh review petition before this Court and to produce the NRC document. However, it is seen from the review petition that the petitioner has not explained with any convincing grounds for the delay in filing the instant review petition after more than 6 years. We have seen that the ground taken for the inordinate delay in filing of the instant review petition is that she is a poor and illiterate lady and due to financial problem, she could not approach this Court immediately after passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the delay occurred was not intentional. However, in our considered view, usually such a general ground is not acceptable for condoning such a huge delay without any genuine grounds. However, taking into account of the fact that right of citizenship of the petitioner is involved, we have decided to examine other materials brought on record in the review petition for ends of justice. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner had, on earlier occasion, filed a review petition i.e., Review Petition No. 184/2017 against the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2017, passed by a Division Bench in WP(C) No. 4614/2013, which was dismissed by the aforesaid Division Bench, vide it’s order dated 27.11.2017. The said order dated 27.11.2017 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal was withdrawn and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given liberty to file a fresh review petition before this Court, vide Page No.# 6/10 it’s order dated 17.01.2020. 10. In the instant review petition, the petitioner has stated that while dismissing the WP(C) No. 4614/2013, this Court has relied on the age discrepancy of one Muksed, appearing in the 1965 voters’ list as well as in the 1989 voters’ list. It is stated that Muksed was 21 years of age in 1965 and 29 years of age in 1989, whereas he should have been 45 years of age in the year 1989. It is stated that it has been found that the age of said Muksed was 49 years in 1989 voters’ list which has been given to the petitioner by the Government Gaonburha. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the voters’ list of 1989, as in the earlier certified copy, there was a mistake of age, i.e., 29 years in place of 49 years. It is also stated that throughout the entire country, particularly, in the State of Assam, some common mistakes in age are found almost everywhere due to typographical mistakes. Therefore, such variation in the voters’ list cannot be a ground to doubt one’s citizenship. It is also contended that the petitioner has got her voters’ list from the respective Gaonburhas and the subsequent NRC document of her mother and brother, to connect well with her parents, grandparents and the husband and in-laws. Therefore, it is contended that unless these documents are properly considered, the petitioner shall not get real justice. 11. It is a settled principle of law that inordinate delay needs to be explained by the petitioner while filing a petition and the same cannot be easily ignored, if there is no genuine reason for such delay is explained by the petitioner. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgments has held that the High Court may refuse to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction if there is negligence or omission on the part of the petitioner to assert his right. 13. We have perused the grounds taken by the petitioner in the Review Petition No. 184/2017. It is seen that the grounds taken earlier in it’s review petition are almost the same grounds, which have been taken by the petitioner in the instant review petition. Page No.# 7/10 14. As mentioned earlier, the aforesaid review petition i.e., Review Petition No. 184/2017 was dismissed by this Court, vide a detailed order dated 27.11.2017, wherein the grounds taken were discussed and considered by the Division Bench of this Court in it’s earlier order. The operative part of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2017 is extracted herein below: - “Before us, it is contended that in Ext.1, age of Moksed All, elder brother of petitioner, was 29 years whereas it should have been 49 years. In support of his contention, petitioner has placed reliance on an unverified/unauthenticated extract of voters list of Kalalgaon constituency for the year 1989 (page 32 of the Review Petition) to show age of Moksed All as 49 years. Firstly, on the basis of an uncertified/unauthenticated document, an exhibited document cannot be discarded. Secondly, in the review petition, petitioner is relying on such a document for reviewing the order passed by the writ Court. As noticed by the writ Court, petitioner neither mentioned in the written statement nor in her evidence that she had a brother by the name of Moksed Ali. On a query by the Court, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioner, submits that he has obtained this document from the village Gaonburah. We have noticed that Gaonburah did not depose before the Tribunal and nobody has stated before the Tribunal that petitioner had an elder brother by the name of Moksed Ali. That apart, most amusing part of this document at page 32 is that Moksed All is shown as son of Mahar Ali. On the other hand, in Ext.1, petitioner had shown that he was the son of Mahar. Whether Mahar Ali and Mahar is one and the same person we do not know. But certainly, this aspect cannot be gone into in review jurisdiction. Petitioner was afforded all opportunities and after full-length hearing, writ petition was decided. The concluded writ petition cannot be heard again on such frivolous plea taken by the review petitioner. There is no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.” Page No.# 8/10 15. A careful perusal of the Review Petition No. 184/2017, it is seen that the documents filed in the aforesaid review petition are identical and same with the documents that have been filed in the instant review petition, except, one document i.e., NRC results for all NRC applicants as per Draft NRC & Supplementary List of Inclusions and Exclusion (Final NRC). Therefore, since the Division Bench of this Court has already reviewed and considered all the documents along with the contents and grounds taken by the petitioner in her earlier review petition, i.e. Review Petition No. 184/2017, which was dismissed by the Division Bench after due consideration, vide the order dated 27.11.2017, we do not find any reason to disagree with the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2017, because, the petitioner has not been able to show that the order dated 21.08.2017, passed by this Court suffers from any error apparent of the face of the record. The petitioner has not been able to establish that there was a discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge and that the new documents are not for filing up the lacuna. There is also no other reason which would invite a review of the said order. As far as the document relating to Final NRC is concerned, though there is a statement at Paragraph- 3(xv) that Final NRC in the State of Assam has been published, wherein the names of the mother and brother of the petitioner have been included, no other details could be found in the review petition. Though the petitioner has referred to the NRC document, it could not be made out as to who are persons, the petitioner has referred to as her mother and brother respectively, as the same has not been detailed by the petitioner in her statements made in the review petition. 16. Be that as it may, this is an admitted position that the Final NRC, though it was published, the same is yet to be accepted by the Registrar General of Citizens Registration, to provide validity to the aforesaid document. Therefore, minus the aforesaid acceptance, the document cannot be taken into consideration for deciding someone’s citizenship, though his/her name might have appeared in the Final NRC. In Page No.# 9/10 this connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rofiqul Hoque vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1160, held that once a Foreigners’ Tribunal holds a person as foreigner, his name could not have been included in the NRC. Paragraph-27 of the aforesaid case being relevant is extracted herein below: - “27. In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.” 17. In another case, i.e., Md. Siraj Ali @ Chiraj Ali and 2 Ors., vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 15.12.2024, in (Review Petition No. 184/2019), this Court has held as follows: - “9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has claimed that the final NRC had been published on 31.08.2019 and in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Adbul Kuddus (supra), the claim of the petitioners should be re- examined as their relatives had been included in the final NRC. In this regard, it may be seen that the publication of the supplementary list of NRC after examination of claims and objections under paragraph No. 6 (3) of the Schedule under Rule 4- A(4) of the Rules of 2003 is to be done by the local Registrar of Citizens Registration. Thereafter, the Registrar General of Citizens Registration is required to publish the final National Register of Indian Citizens in the State of Assam. There are no materials placed before us to show that the Registrar General of Citizens Registration has accepted the publication of supplementary list by the local Registrar and published the final list. In the absence of such exercise, the final NRC, which is relied upon by the petitioners cannot be accepted to be a ground for reviewing the Judgment & Order dated 31.01.2018 passed by this Court. Further, as regards the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, it may be seen that the question of the person aggrieved having liberty to invoke writ Page No.# 10/10 jurisdiction or even review jurisdiction of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court would arise when there are contradictory decisions/opinions rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal in cases of near family members. In the present case, no two (2) contradictory decisions or opinions in respect of family members of the petitioners have been produced before us to attract invocation of review jurisdiction. Therefore, the case relied upon by the petitioners cannot render them any assistance.” 18. Coming to the present case, it is seen from what has been projected by the petitioner, he failed to make out any case so as to persuade this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction in terms of settled principles of law. Therefore, upon due consideration of the projection made by the petitioner in it’s entirety, we do not find any ground to recall the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2017. 19. In view of the above discussions made, we have come to the considered view that the instant review petition does not have any merit to interfere with the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2017, passed in WP(C) No. 4614/2013. 20. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant