Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010191732023 2026:GAU-AS:6540- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5012/2023 MASUDA BEGUM @ MASHUDA BEGUM D/O MOJO SHEIKH, W/O BOSIRUL HOQUE, P/R/O VILL-TATIPARA (BORAITARI), P.S.-SUKCHAR, DIST-SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY 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-781006 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR PIN-783131 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR PIN-783135 6:THE CO-ORDINATOR Page No.# 2/14 NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : A W AMAN, MR. J ABBAS,MD A RAHMAN,MR. S R ISLAM,MR. M. ALOM,SK ABDULLAH,MS. P KHATUN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR S A BARBHUYAN,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. J. Abbas. Advocate for the respondents : Mr. D. J. Das, CGC Mr. G. Sarma, Standing Counsel, Home Deptt. & NRC, Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, ECI Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved: 26.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 12.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes Page No.# 3/14 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (S.P. Khaund, J) The petitioner in this case is Masuda Begum @Mashuda Begum and she is aggrieved by the opinion dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, South Salmara- Mankachar, (Assam) in F.T. Case No. 2284/SSM/11 arising out of reference IM(D)T case No. 1249/1998. Vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2022, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of Post 1971 stream. 2. Heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. J. Das, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT, Border and NRC matters; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. P Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress in his argument that the petitioner has categorically mentioned in her written statement that her father's name is Mojo Sheikh and her grandfather's name is Isopuddin Sk, whereas her mother's name is Samsun Nehar and her grandmother's name is Panaullah Sk. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also mentioned in her written statement that her grandmother's name is Khotizan Bibi. A pertinent point to be noted is that the petitioner was married twice. Earlier the petitioner got married to one, Sahidur Rohman of village-Berabhanga in the district of Dhubri (now South Salmara, Mankachar), who passed away on 05.12.2001 owing to an incident of assassination. Thereafter, the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with Bosirul Hoque of village-Tatipara (Boraitari) in the district of Dhubri, South Salmara. The Kabin Nama was executed and registered on 01.07.2004 and the registration was duly authenticated on 31.07.2004. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner has submitted sufficient documents linking her lineage with her parents and grandparents. There are some discrepancies in the names and these discrepancies have been cleared by an affidavit which was exhibited by petitioner while adducing her evidence. It is also submitted that the Qazi has deposed as DW-4 and has proved the Kabin Nama. The evidence adduced by the petitioner has substantiated her Page No.# 4/14 stance. Without any valid reasons, the petitioner's documents were not accepted as evidence and the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for FT Matters, Mr. G. Sharma, laid stress in his argument that the petitioner's name does not appear along with her father's name in the voters list. Indeed, the petitioner was declared as a D-voter and thus her name does not appear along with her father as a voter. It is also submitted that although the petitioner's father's name appears with her grandparents' names, yet the petitioner has failed to establish any lineage with her parents and grandparents through any reliable documents. Petitioner could not even recall her date of marriage. The date of marriage is overwritten and this has been admitted by the witness DW-4. Documents of this nature cannot establish petitioner's lineage with her parents and grandparents. Overwriting is visible in the school certificate also. The petitioner relied heavily on the oral evidence, but oral evidence is not sufficient to prove citizenship. The learned counsel appearing for the other respondents have adopted the submissions of the learned Counsel for FT Matters. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the Bar. 7. To substantiate her stance, the petitioner through her written statement/written reply and her evidence-in-chief has stated that she is a genuine Indian citizen and her father's name is Mojo Sheikh, son of Isopuddin Sk and her mother's name is Samsun Nehar. The petitioner has also stated that her grandfather Isopuddin Sk and her grandmother Khotizan Bibi are genuine Indian citizens and their names figure in the NRC of 1951 and in different voter's list prepared from time to time. The petitioner has also stated that she was born and brought up at village-Mandarpara, P.S.-Sukchar, district-Dhubri (now South Salmara, Mankachar). She was admitted in 2205 No. Mandarpara L.P. School and she cleared her class- IV from the same school. The headmaster of the school issued a school certificate on 31.12.2016 vide Sl. No. 7, Book No. 8. 8. Through her evidence-in-chief, the petitioner has exhibited this school certificate as Exbt-1. The headmaster of 2205 No. Mandarpara L.P. School, Amir Hussain deposed as DW-3 that he has been serving as the headmaster of the aforementioned School since 2006. He has Page No.# 5/14 proved the school certificate, but he has stated in his evidence that he had issued Exbt- 1 without any application for the same, and he gave the certificate to one, Bosirul Hoque, who is the husband of the petitioner. He has exhibited the admission register as Exbt -13 and Exbt -13(i) as the page on the admission register and Exbt -13(ii) as the name of the petitioner. He has further testified in his cross-examination that in the admission register, in the column of age, the petitioner’s age and her father's name is overwritten, and he was not aware who was responsible for the overwriting. He has further admitted in his cross- examination that Exbt -13(i) is torn, and half of the page is missing. The age of the petitioner which is written in Exbt -13 is not clear enough to understand, but according to him, the age of the petitioner appears to be 5 years. He has also stated that no date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned in Exbt-13, and he has calculated the date of birth by considering the date of admission on 04.02.1987. These documents, Exbt-1 and Exbt-13 were correctly not accepted by the learned Tribunal as reliable evidence. Another reason why exhibit-1, i.e., the school certificate cannot be accepted as evidence is that the State emblem has been embossed in the certificate. The petitioner’s evidence does not appear to be creditworthy, moreso, when she as DW1 also could not recall the date of her marriage and she has admitted this fact in her cross-examination. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this court in Karim Ali Vs. The Union of India reported in 2022 (3), GLT 816, wherein it has been held that:- “39. Further, the observation of the Tribunal that there is no document to show that the parents of the opposite party used to reside in village Kharmuja cannot be held to be proper. The petitioner had clearly stated in his written statement that his parents were staying in Kharmuja initially after they got married and thereafter, they shifted to Muskuri Islampur and then, to Paschim Matia. The said evidence was corroborated by all the witnesses who had appeared before the Tribunal including the mother, uncle and younger brother of the proceedee. While scrutinizing the cross-examination, nothing has been brought to our notice that the aforesaid factum of shifting from the Kharmuja to Muskuri Islampur and thereafter to Paschim Matia by the parents of the petitioner has been really doubted or questioned. Page No.# 6/14 40. It is not necessary that every averment or fact asserted has to be supported by documentary evidence. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that all facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence. Thus, it is not necessary that every facts must be proved only with the help of documentary evidence That will be contrary to the law of evidence. Further, as provided under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence is excluded only in respect of certain situations or transactions, viz., in terms of a contract or of a grant for any other disposition of property, which have been reduced to the form of document and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of document. But there is no rule of evidence that every factum has to be proved only with the help of the documentary evidence. Thus, is not correct to hold that every fact of relationship between the parties or the place of stay or shifting of residence has to be proved with the aid of documentary evidence. 41. In the present case, however, it is not that there are no documentary evidences to support the oral evidence so adduced by the petitioner as far as his relationships and place of stay are concerned.” 10. Reverting back to this case, it is held that in this case, the petitioner has refrained from explaining the shifting of the petitioner's family members from the village Mandarpara to the village Bhutiadanga. Unlike the case in Karim Ali (Supra), where there is an instance of the petitioner's mother stating that she got married to Asaduz Zaman when the said Asaduz Zaman was a resident of Balarvita, but after marriage they shifted to Kharmuja. In the instant case, there is not even a hint relating to the shifting of the petitioner's family members early in the 1970s from village Mandarpara to village Bhutiadanga. In a matter of factly manner, voters list of 1970 was referred to without even a hint relating to the shifting of the petitioner's grandfather from village Mandarpara to village Bhutiadanga. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of Karim Ali (Supra), is not applicable to this case. 11. A careful scrutiny of the document exhibit-13, exhibit-13(i), exhibit-13(ii) clearly reveals, the overwriting present against the age of the petitioner. Such overwritten documents cannot be accepted as evidence. Page No.# 7/14 12. Manipulation of an overwritten document cannot be overruled. Relating to the NRC data, it is trite law that NRC data cannot prove citizenship. Through her written statement and her evidence-in-chief, the petitioner as DW-1 has stated that her grandfather's name figures as Isapuddin Sk instead of Isopuddin Sk in the voters list of 1960 at serial No. 157, House No. 34, village-Mandapara, Union No. 6, P.O.-Sukchar, in the erstwhile district- Goalpara, Assam. Her grandfather's name has appeared against the name of her grandmother Khotizan Bibi as Isobuddin Sk instead of Isopuddin Sk. 13. It is further submitted that her grandfather's name appears as Isopuddin Sk in the voters list of 1977 at serial No. 343, House No. 89, in the village of 291, Bhutiadanga, P.O.- Sukchar, in the erstwhile district-Goalpara, against her grandmother Khotizan Bibi's name at serial No. 344. It is further submitted that her grandfather's name appears as Isobuddin Sk instead of Isapuddin Sk in the certified copy of the voters list of 1977 against the petitioner's father's name, i.e., Mojo Sheikh at serial No. 349, and her grandfather's name also appears as Isopuddin Sk in the electoral roll of 1970 against her grandmother Khotizan Bibi's name at serial No. 389, House No. 112, village 291, Bhutiadanga, P.O.- Sukchar, P.S.- South Salmara, in the erstwhile district-Goalpara. To substantiate her stance, the petitioner adduced the evidence of four witnesses including herself. 14. The petitioner has exhibited the following documents:- School certificate as Exhibit-1 Kabin Nama as Exhibit-III Certified copy of NRC 1951 as Exhibit-IV, Certified copy of electoral roll of 1960 as exhibit-V, Certified copy of electoral roll of 1970 as Exhibit-VI, and; Certified copy of electoral roll of 1977 as Exhibit-VIII. The petitioner has also exhibited the certified copies of voters list of 2005 and 2010 as Page No.# 8/14 Exhibit-VIII and Exhibit-IX respectively. 14. A close scrutiny of the evidence depicts that the petitioner's projected grandfather Isopuddin Sk's name figures in the voters list of 1960, in the district of Goalpara, Dhubri subdivision, P.S.-South Salmara and village-Mandarpara. He is shown as the son of Panaullah and his wife Khotizan Bibi's name also figures along with him in the same voters list. This list is marked as Exbt-V. Discrepancy surfaces in the spelling of petitioner's projected grandfather's name. Instead of Isopuddin, his name figures as Isopuddin Sk, son of Panaullah in the voters list of 1970 and Khotizan Bibi's name as wife of Isopuddin also figures in the same voters list of Mankachar LAC, Goalpara, Dhubri subdivision, P.S.- South Salmara and village Bhutiadanga. This village is not the same village. 15. The village shown in the voters list of 1960 is Mandarpara. The voters list of 1970 is marked as Exbt-VI. After seven years, the petitioner's projected grandfather's name figures in the voters list of 1977. Here, his name is shown as Isapuddin instead of Isopuddin or Isabuddin. However, his father's name has not changed. He is shown as son of Panaullah and his wife Khotizan Bibi is shown as wife of Isob Ali and not as the wife of Isapuddin. This is the same village as shown in the voters list of 1970. The village is Bhutiadanga. In this voters list of 1977, the petitioner's projected father's name Mojo Sheikh as son of Isob appears for the first time and his age is shown as 22 years. The voters list is marked as Exbt-VII. In the voters list of 2005, Mojo Sheikh's name appears as son of Isapuddin and not Isob Ali or Isapuddin Sk or Isopuddin Sk. This voters list is also from the same village Bhutiadanga and is marked as Exbt-VIII. A similar voters list marked as Exbt-IX relates to the year 2010. 16. Through an affidavit, the petitioner has tried to justify the discrepancies in the names arising in different voters lists. This affidavit is marked as Exbt-X, wherein it has been sworn in that Isapuddin Sk, is the petitioner's grandfather, but unfortunately her grandfather's name has appeared as Isapuddin Sk instead of Isopuddin Sk in the voters list of 1960 and as Isob Ali instead of Isopuddin Sk in the voters list of 1977. It is further sworn in that against her grandmother, Khotizan Bibi's name, her grandfather's name appears as Isob Ali instead of Page No.# 9/14 Isopuddin Sk in the same voters list of 1977. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sirajul Hoque Vs. The State Assam and Ors reported in (2019) 5 SCC 534, wherein it has been held that:- “3.There is no doubt that the great grandfather's name Amtullah appears as Amtullah throughout the document. Equally, there is no doubt about the father's name which appears as Hakim Ali throughout. The only discrepancy found is that in some of the documents Kefatullah later becomes Kematullah. However, what is important to note is that his father's name Amtullah continues as Amtullah and the other family members associated continued as such. Also produced are NRC Registration details of the year 1971 of the grandfather who is noted to be Kefatullah in this document. Other voters lists are then produced where the letter F becomes the letter M with other family names remaining the same In fact, the appellant has himself produced a document of 1981 from the Income Tax Department giving his Permanent Account Number. Apart from these documents, certain other later documents have also been produced including photo identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India and Identity cards issued to his brother including voters lists in which the appellant's name appears. 4. Having gone through these documents, we are of the view that it is not possible to state that Kematullah is not the same despite being named Kefatullah in some of the documents. This being so, the grandfather's identity, father's identity, etc has been established successfully by the appellant. Further, the mere fact that the father may later have gone to another village is no reason to doubt this document.” 18. Reverting back to this case, it is held that several discrepancies have surfaced in the names of the petitioner's grandfather. Discrepancies in the name of the petitioner's grandmother has also surfaced. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact of the silence of the petitioner relating to shifting of village way back in 1970. In Sirajul Hoque (Supra), only insertion of one letter M in place of letter F has been the discrepancy which has surfaced whereas, in the instant case, Isopuddin becomes Isapuddin as well as Isob Ali. Khotizan Bibi's name appears as Khotivan Bibi in the NRC of 1951. Khotivan Bibi's name appears as wife of Isob Ali instead of Isopuddin Sk in the voters list of 1977, whereas, in the same voters list, Page No.# 10/14 the petitioner's grandfather's name appears as Isob Ali instead of Isopuddin Sk. These many discrepancies clearly depicts that the instant case is not similar. The ratio of Sirajul Hoque (Supra) is not applicable to this case. The instant case is not similar to the case of Sirajul Hoque (Supra). 19. Apart from numerous discrepancies surfacing in the petitioner's grandfather's name as well as the petitioner's grandmother's name in the voters list and the NRC details, the fact that the petitioner has failed to explain the shifting of the petitioner's grandfather from Mandapara village to Bhutiadanga village in the year 1970, renders this case and the evidence, unworthy of credence. 20. Relating to the name of her grandfather figuring in different villages in different voters lists, the petitioner has not attributed any reasons in her written statement or in her evidence-in-chief. Through this exhibit, the petitioner has also stated that her grandmother's name has appeared as Khotivan Bibi instead of Khotizan Bibi in the certified copy of the NRC of 1951. Although the petitioner has given a self sworn affidavit to justify the discrepancies in the names, of her grandparents in the same voters list or different voters lists, this does not absolve the petitioner from discharging her onus to prove her case with cogent, reliable and admissible evidence as mandated by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 21. The petitioner has indeed mentioned through her evidence-in-chief and through her written statement that she was earlier married to Sahidur Rohman who was assassinated and thereafter her marriage was solemnized with Bosirul Hoque, but the fact that the petitioner was discreet about her siblings renders her evidence unworthy of credence. The 1977 voters list depicts the names of Khotizan Bibi as wife of Isob Ali at serial No. 344, and at serial No. 345, Issahaq Sk is shown as son of Isob Ali whose age is 39 years, while Rojob Ali and Mojo Sheikh are also shown as sons of Isob Ali whose age are shown as 27 years and 22 years respectively. Is this Isob Ali, the same person- Isapuddin Sk, shown as son of Panaullah? Why did the petitioner refrain from mentioning the names of her uncles whose names have appeared in the voters list of 1977? Page No.# 11/14 22. Surprisingly, the petitioner has also failed to mention the names of any of her siblings or was she hesitant to disclose the names of her siblings? When the documentary evidence is shrouded by such doubts, these documents cannot be said to be of such a nature which discharges the onus of the petitioner to prove her case with reliable, cogent and admissible evidence. It was the petitioner’s liability to place before the Tribunal all the evidence and documents of which, only she was aware of. It is not the Tribunal’s obligation to derive evidence to ascertain a person’s nationality. 23. To prove her lineage with her father, the petitioner adduced the evidence of Azhar Ali, the Qazi, who deposed as DW-4 that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized on 01.07.2004 with Bosirul Hoque. At that time, the petitioner was 23 years of age. He has proved the Kabin Nama as exhibit-3 and his signature on the Kabin Nama as exhibit-3(i). In his cross- examination, he has testified that he has been serving as the Qazi of Muslim Marriage Register, Hazirhat, Assam since 1997. He has stated that the date of marriage was recorded by him but the other contents of the certificate was written by one assistant. 24. He has exhibited the marriage register as Exbt-14 and he has proved the original page on the register as Exbt -14(i) and his signature as Exbt -14(ii). He has admitted in his cross- examination that the date of marriage was overwritten by him. He has also admitted that the age of the bridegroom was not mentioned in the register and he has not taken down the signature of the guardian of the bridegroom. He has also admitted that he has not completed the column Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and has not mentioned the date of registration. 25. After scrutinizing the evidence of DW-4, this Court is constrained to hold that Exbt-3 and Exbt-14 are not reliable documents where the date of marriage has been overwritten and where certain columns have not been filled and the age of the bridegroom or the guardian of the bridegroom have not been mentioned. Exbt-3 is the certificate issued by the Qazi based on the Register book, Exbt-14. Admittedly the date of marriage has been overwritten in Exbt- 14. The Qazi has also admitted the names of the guardians of the bride and the groom have also not been mentioned. No error or perversity is discernible in the decision of the Tribunal when the Kabin Nama was not accepted as admissible linking document. Apparently the Page No.# 12/14 overwriting and the blank columns renders this document incomplete and inadmissible as evidence. 26. It has also come to the notice of this Court that while adducing the evidence, the witnesses have mentioned some documents as exhibits and these documents, however, were not marked according to the testimony of the witnesses. The dissimilarity in identifying some documents by the witnesses and the marking of the same is reproduced in the comparative table below:- Identification of the document Marking of the document i) Exhibit-I-School certificate Exbt-1 ii) Exhibit-II-Death certificate of the pettioner’s husband Exbt-2 iii) Exhibit-III-Marriage Kabin Nama Exbt-3 iv) Exhibit-IV-NRC of 1951 Exbt-4 v) Exhibit-VI-E-roll of 1970 Exbt-vi vi) Exhibit-VII-E-roll of 1977 Exbt-vii vii) Exhibit-VIII-Voters list of 2005 Exbt-viii viii) Exhibit-IX-Voters list of 2010 Exbt-ix 27. Recapitulating the entire evidence, it is thereby held that the petitioner tried to prove her school certificate through contemporaneous records, but the overwriting visible in the school Register discredits the documentary evidence. The petitioner also tried to establish her lineage with her parents through her Kabin Nama but due to the overwriting in the date of Page No.# 13/14 her marriage in the Kabin Nama, and owing to the evidence of the petitioner in her cross- examination relating to her date of marriage, the proof of Kabin Nama by exhibiting the same and the proof of the Register which revealed overwriting in the date of marriage renders the Kabin Nama an invalid piece of evidence more so, when the names of the guardians and the signatures are not recorded in the Kabin Nama. 28. It would also be apt to reiterate that there is no explanation of the petitioner regarding the shifting of her grandfather from Mandarpara to another village i.e., Bhutiadanga. The petitioner’s projected grandparents names appeared in Mandarpara village in the year 1960 and thereafter, their names started appearing in Bhutiadanga village from the year 1970. The discrepancies in the names of the petitioner’s grandfather in the same voters list and in different voters lists have already been discussed in the foregoing discussions. 29. It would also be pertinent to mention that the Tribunal has spelt out sound reasonings while considering the petitioner’s documentary evidence as inadmissible. 30. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that no infirmity could be detected in the decision of the learned Tribunal. 31. The challenge to the impugned opinion fails and resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the consequences of the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, South Salmara-Mankachar, (Assam) in F.T. Case No. 2284/SSM/11 arising out of reference IM(D)T case No. 1249/1998, vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2022, thereby holding the petitioner above-named as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, shall follow. 32. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s record along with a copy of this judgment and order, to be made a part of the record by the learned Tribunal for future reference. Page No.# 14/14 JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant