Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010202102019 2026:GAU-AS:7322 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6395/2019 RANJIT DAS S/O. LT. KHUSINDRA DAS, VILL. GOBINDER KHUPA, P.S. KATIGORAH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788805. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN (NRC) BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CACHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM PIN-788006. 6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788003. 7:THE OFFICER INCHARGE KATIGORAH POLICE STATION CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788805 -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocated for petitioners: Ms. J. Paul Advocate for Respondents: Ms. A. Verma, SC, Home Deptt. & NRC Mr. P. Sarma, GA, Assam, Mr. N. Kalita (on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI) Ms. J. Sarma, CGC. Date on which judgment is reserved : 22.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, j) Page No.# 3/6 1. Heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department and NRC; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI) and Ms. J. Sarma, CGC. 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Ranjit Das has filed the instant writ petition seeking interference with judgment and order/opinion dated 07.07.2018 passed by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal No.4th, Cachar at Silchar in F.T.4th/D/409/2015, whereby, the petitioner is the proceeding has been declared a foreigner, who had illegally entered India via Assam on or after 25.03.1971 from the Specified territory under Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment Act, 1985). 3. The facts in brief are that under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar at Silchar, who is the Competent Authority made a reference seeking an opinion as to whether the petitioner as proceedee is a foreign national within the meaning of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946. The reference was registered as the above mentioned F.T. case and notice was issued. 4. Upon being noticed, the petitioner as proceedee/opposite party appeared and filed written statement along with some photocopies of documents. However, as stated by the learned Tribunal, the written statement was not accompanied by any affidavit. During the proceeding, the petitioner adduced evidence on affidavit of only Page No.# 4/6 herself as DW-1. She also exhibited a few documents. After the completion of the proceeding, the learned Tribunal answered the reference against the proceedee, holding him to be a foreigner pertaining to the post 25.03.1971 stream. 5. Drawing attention to the relevant materials, Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is 30.06.1966 and that that in the voters list of 1965 the names of his grandmother, Sailo Bala Das, his father Khusindra Das and his mother Renu Bala Das were enlisted at serial nos. 238, 239 and 240 respectively. 6. It is further pointed out that in the voters list of 1970 again, the names of the aforementioned Sailo Bala Das, his father Khusindra Das and his mother Renu Bala Das find mention at serial nos. 266, 267 and 269. In the voters list of 1989, the name of the petitioner Ranjit Das figures at Sl. No.584 along with Khusindra Das (stated to be his father) at Sl. No.582 and Renu Bala Das (stated to be his mother) at Sl. No. 583. However the same document has not been exhibited. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner, after being enlisted in the 1989 voters list voted for the first time therein. 7. Upon perusing the materials, we find that the voters list of 1970, where, the purported grandmother and parents of the petitioner figure was applied for on 22.01.2019, which is after the date of the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2018. Obviously, the same document was not exhibited before the learned Tribunal. Page No.# 5/6 8. From the records, we find that the voters list of 1965 was exhibited as Exhibit-2 As already mentioned, the name of Khusindra Das is one of the three persons figuring therein at Sl. No. 239 and the petitioner claims and contends that the same Khusindra Das is his father. 9. In the purported voters list of 1989, the name of the petitioner Ranjit Das appears at Sl. No. 584 along with Khusindra Das at Sl. No. 582 and petitioner Ranjit Das is indicated as the son of Khusindra Das. However, no such document was exhibited during the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. 10. Apart from this purported voters list of 1989, which could have been a link documentary evidence to support the case of the petitioner - there is no other document to create the documentary linkage between the petitioner and any of his ancestors, including his parents, prior to 1971. Therefore, we come to the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the petitioner as proceedee had failed to discharge the burden and accordingly, the petitioner Ranjit Das was declared a foreigner of the post 25.03.1971 stream. 11. Despite the aforesaid determination, we take note of the fact that one of the alternative submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the event of the Court not finding sufficient merits in the petitioner's case for interfering with the impugned order - he may be given the option of seeking the benefit under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The aforesaid submission was also not Page No.# 6/6 seriously objected to by the learned counsels for the respondents. 12. Accordingly, in view of the above the writ petition is dismissed; however with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appropriate Authority under the CAA and if such approach is done in the manner prescribed, the same is to be considered in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant