Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010049102026 2026:GAU-AS:4297-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1497/2026 MUSSTT ESSA BHAN @ ISSA BHANU @ ISSA BEGUM W/O MD. SAHA ALI R/O VILL. BARJHAR BAGISHA PO BHAKATPARA PS MANGALDAI DIST. DARANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS 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 MONGALDAI DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM. PIN 784115 Page No.# 2/9 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DARRANG DISTRICT DARRANG ASSAM. PIN 78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M KHATUN, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 25.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. T.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Essa Bhan @ Issa Bhanu @ Issa Begum, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal (1st), Mangaldai, Darrang, in F.T. Case No. 4561/11, arising out of Ref. Case No. F.T. 1091/10, by which she was declared to be a foreigner or illegal migrant of stream of post 25.03.1971. 3. This writ petition was filed on 09.03.2026, to assail the opinion dated 21.12.2018, i.e. after an extraordinary delay of 7 years, 2 months, 19 days (or 2635 days). Hence, the matter was heard on delay and laches on part Page No.# 3/9 of the petitioner to assail the impugned opinion. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has taken a stand that due to her illiteracy and financial hardship, she could not file the writ petition within a reasonable time. It was also submitted that as the valuable citizenship right of the petitioner is at stake, she may be given ore opportunity to contest the proceeding. 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had submitted that the explanation given for the inordinate delay is vague and insufficient and not supported by any documents or any other cogent and reliable material. 6. The learned CGC and the learned Junior Govt. Advocate for the other appearing respondents have adopted the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide citizen of India, born and brought up in Village Rajapukhuri Bagisha Gaon under Kalaigaon Police Station in the district of Darrang, Assam, and is entitled to all rights and privileges guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner possesses all the requisite documents to establish her citizenship, and her lineage can be duly established from the voter lists of 1965 and 1970, wherein the name of her grandfather appears. It was submitted that in subsequent voter lists of 2011 and 2018, the names of her parents are recorded. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner, after her marriage with one Saha Ali of Barjhar Bagisha Village under Mangaldai Police Station, could not have her name recorded in the voter list of her parental village as she Page No.# 4/9 was married prior to attaining the age of 18 years. However, her name appears in other documents such as Aadhaar Card along with her husband, thereby establishing her identity and linkage. 9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had appeared in the Foreigners Tribunal in FT Case No. 4561/2011, and contested the case by filing written statement and by adducing evidence by examining herself and her father as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively. However, she was not afforded adequate opportunity to properly present and exhibit all relevant documents. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the evidence and in violation of principles of natural justice, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner. 10. The petitioner had examined herself as DW-1 and had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Certified copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.1); (ii) Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.2); (iii) Certified copy of voter list of 2011 (Ext.3); (iv) A copy of linkage certificate (Ext.4); (v) Panchayat certificate (Ext.5); (vi) A copy of voter I/D card (Ext.6); (vii); Certified copy of voter list of 2011 (Ext.7). The father of the petitioner had examined as DW-2 and had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Certified copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.1); (ii) Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.2); (iii) Certified copy of voter list of 2011 (Ext.3); (iv) A copy of linkage certificate (Ext.4); (v) Panchayat certificate (Ext.5); (vi) A copy of voter I/D card (Ext.6); (vii); Certified copy of voter list of 2011 (Ext.7). 11. On the issue of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate woman, having no proper knowledge of legal remedies. Due to financial constraints, ignorance and lack of proper guidance, she could not approach this Court immediately after the passing of Page No.# 5/9 the impugned order. The delay, therefore, is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond her control. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the delay in filing the present writ petition be condoned in the interest of justice and that the impugned opinion dated 21.12.2018 passed in FT Case No. 4561/2011 by the learned Foreigners Tribunal be set aside, or in the alternative, the matter be remanded for fresh consideration. 12. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned opinion dated 21.12.2018 upon appreciation of the materials on record, recorded a finding that in the absence of any cogent and reliable documentary evidence, the petitioner has failed to prove the existence of her projected parents in India prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971 and accordingly, failed to establish her linkage with genuine Indian citizens. It was further observed by the learned Tribunal that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not trustworthy and could not be relied upon. Consequently, the petitioner was held to have failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon her under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Resultantly, the opinion was passed against the petitioner, thereby declaring her to be a foreigner or an illegal migrant of stream of post 25.03.1971. 13. In respect of inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion after a lapse of 7 years, 2 months, 19 days (or 2635 days), it may be stated that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition, but unless the petitioner demonstrates good and cogent reason, delay and laches would disentitle the petitioner to equitable relief on the principle that delay defeats equity. If one needs any authority on the point, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 INSC 314: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 351, and Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Page No.# 6/9 Power Corporation Ltd. V. Ram Gopal, (2020) 13 SCC 225: (2020) 0 Supreme(SC) 93 (Full Bench). In the later case, while approving the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, it was held to the effect that limitation does not strictly apply to a proceeding under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time and the High Courts were cautioned by observing that prolonged delay of many years ought not to have been overlooked or condoned. Paragraph 16 thereof [as extracted from (2020) 0 Supreme(SC) 93 ] is quoted below:- 16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 this Court observed thus: "17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". ...It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment." 14. On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 09.03.2026 to assail the opinion dated 21.12.2018, i.e. after 7 years, 2 months, 19 days (or 2635 days). The said delay is explained merely by stating that the petitioner is poor and illiterate woman. Such a vague statement cannot Page No.# 7/9 be accepted as nothing prevented the petitioner from availing free legal aid, which he did not. Thus, the writ petition is also not maintainable in view of the delay and laches. 15. The Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 46 of the case of Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi, 2024 INSC 980: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1189, 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 [extracted from (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1189 ] 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.” 16. 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 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 Page No.# 8/9 identification and deportation of foreigners." 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. It must be taken note of the fact that the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), 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 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 Page No.# 9/9 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. 20. Be that as it may, as the issue of citizenship has been raised, notwithstanding the delay and laches, the Court has carefully examined the materials available in the writ petition and on merit, the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with on any count. Thus, the challenge to the impugned opinion dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal (1st), Mangaldai, Darrang, in F.T. Case No. 4561/11, arising out of Ref. Case No. F.T. 1091/10, by which she was declared to be a foreigner or illegal migrant of stream of post 25.03.1971, fails. 21. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed on merit as well as on account of delay and laches at the “motion stage” without issuing notice upon the respondents. The consequences of the said opinion shall follow. 22. There shall be no order as to cost. 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, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of the record of the learned Foreigners Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant