Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010216342019 2026:GAU-AS:8092 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6893/2019 HIRAMATI BAISHYA D/O- LT MANMOHAN SARKAR, W/O- SUBUDH BAISHYA, R/O- VILL- KHELMATI ADABARI, P.S. RANGAPARA, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784505 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY., HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, DELHI- 01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01 4:THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR NRC GOVT. OF ASSAM GHY-01 5:THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OF FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL GOVT. OF ASSAM GHY-01 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 Page No.# 2/10 7:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 78400 Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. S.C Das Advocate for the respondent No.1 : Mr. S.S Roy, CGC Advocate for respondent No. 2, 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. G. Sarma, SC Advocate for respondent No. 7 : Mr. P. Sarma, Govt. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. A. Ali, SC, ECI -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Date on which judgment is reserved : 27.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, J)tra nscriptions Heard Shri. S.C Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt., and NRC for the respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6; Shri. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Shri. A. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent no. 3; Shri. S.S Roy, learned CGC for the respondent no.1 and Shri. P. Sarma, learned State counsel for the respondent no.7. 2. The petitioner namely, Smti. Hiramati Baishya, is invoking the Page No.# 3/10 provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment and order dated 08.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No. 7th, Tezpur at Balipara, in FT Case No. 68/2016, arising out of (Ref. No. TZP(B)/2155/07), dated 02/08/2007, whereby the petitioner, as proceedee was declared to be an illegal migrant who had come into Assam on or after 25/03/1971 and necessary steps were directed to be taken for her deportation and keeping as an internee in the detention camp till then. 3. The facts in briefs may be narrated herein below: The Superintendent of Police Border, Sonitpur, preferred a reference by Memo No. TZP(B)/2155/2007 upon preliminary inquiry that the petitioner was an illegal migrant and reference was made to the Tribunal for an opinion in terms of the governing law regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same was registered as F.T Case No. 68/2016 and notice issued to the petitioner. 4. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner as proceedee appeared and filed her written statement. She also adduced evidence of only herself as DW-1 and also exhibited 4(four) documents. However, after perusing the materials and adjudicating the matter, the learned Tribunal returned the finding and opinion against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition has been filed as mentioned above. 5. In the written statement filed by the petitioner as proceedee, she stated that the proceeding was baseless and without justification and that she was born and brought up at village Sirajuli Pathar within the jurisdiction of Dhekiajuli Police Station in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. Page No.# 4/10 She also stated that the parents and forefathers were originally inhabitants of the State and citizens of the country. She mentioned about her father, late Manmohan Sarkar, who was stated to be an inhabitant of village Sirajuli Pathar in the same area. She referred to a Sale Deed of 1964 with regard to her father. She stated in her written statement that with regard to her marriage, a certificate has been issued by the Block Development Officer Barsola. She also annexed electoral photo identity card of her and a ration card. 6. Summing up her pleadings, she stated that the proceeding is not justified and that she is an Indian citizen. During the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the proceedee Hiramoti Baishya adduced evidence of only herself as DW1 in which she stated that she has been falsely suspected to be an illegal migrant and that she is a citizen of India by birth. She stated that her parents and forefathers were citizens of the country and that her father, late Manmohan Sarkar, was an inhabitant of village Sirajuli Pathar under Dhekiajuli Police Station in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. She mentioned about the Sale Deed of 1964 and also her marriage certificate issued by the BDO of Barsola Block. She referred to the electoral identity card and also the ration card. However, during the proceeding, the petitioner failed to adduce in evidence any voters list of the relevant years pertaining to her father or herself. The date of birth of the petitioner is stated to be 02/08/1952. 7. The learned counsel, Shri. Das, supporting the pleadings of the writ petition, submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth. It is submitted that her Page No.# 5/10 father, Manmohan Sarkar, was an Indian citizen and Exhibit 1 was the Sale Deed which was exhibited with regard to a sale which has taken place in 1964 indicating that the petitioner's father was an Indian citizen. He has also referred to the marriage certificate issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, whereby linkage is indicated of the petitioner with her father, Manmohan Sarkar. 8. The learned counsel also refers to the voters identity card of the petitioner exhibited as Exhibit 3 and the ration card exhibited as Exhibit 4 and submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously overlooked these documents and arrived at the finding adverse to the petitioner. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the event of her challenge to the impugned judgment failing, the petitioner would like to seek the benefits of the Citizenship (Amendment), Act 2019 [CAA]. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned State counsel for the petitioner refers to the case of Rupajan Begum -versus- Union of India, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, and refers to paragraphs-16 and 18, which may be reproduced herein below: “16. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate. If the document and its contents is to be subjected to a thorough search and probe we do not see why the said certificate should have been interdicted by the High Court, particularly, in the context of the facts surrounding the enumeration and inclusion of the documents mentioned in the illustrative list of Page No.# 6/10 documents, as noticed above. In fact, the said list of illustrative documents was also laid before this Court in the course of the proceedings held from time to time and this Court was aware of the nature and effect of each of the documents mentioned in the list. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons we set aside the order of the High Court insofar as the invalidity of the certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary is concerned and allow the present appeals to the above limited extent. We make it clear that the certificates issued by the G.P. Secretary/Executive Magistrate will however be acted upon only to establish a linkage between the holder of such certificate and the person(s) from whom legacy is being claimed. The certificate will be put to such limited use only if the contents of the certificate are found to be established on due and proper enquiry and verification. 10. On the other hand, Shri. G. Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 & 4 submits that the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat would not help the petitioner as the concerned person did not adduce evidence. 11. In this regard, the learned State counsel referred to the decision of this court in Khudeja Khatun -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2018 (3) GLT 347. The learned State counsel also submits that the ration card is also not a proof of citizenship as has been held by this Court in the case of Saru Sheikh -versus- Union of India, reported in (2017) 4 GLR 295. 12. The learned State counsel submits that even the voter's ID would not come to the assistance of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by this court in Md. Babul Islam -versus- State of Assam & 4 Others, passed in WP(C) No. 3547/2016 2018:GAU-AS:7084-DB. 13. We have perused the relevant materials and the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, considered the rival submissions and the case laws Page No.# 7/10 submitted at the Bar. As mentioned above, no voters list was exhibited by the petitioner as proceedee in the proceedings before the Tribunal. A Sale Deed dating back to 1964 was exhibited as Exhibit 1 during the proceeding. The Sale Deed is dated 12/06/1964, and it indicates one Manmohan Sarkar, son of late Bisambar Sarkar and two others were purchasing a piece of land from one Manash Ali. The learned Tribunal in the adjudication did not accept this document, as the Sale Deed was not proved by the proceedee by calling upon the concerned Sub-Registry Official. Of course, the vendor and the vendee of the Sale Deed were no longer available to prove the Sale Deed. 14. For argument's sake, even if the Sale Deed is accepted, it would at best indicate that said Manmohan Sarkar was a citizen of India in 1964. What the petitioner as proceedee was required to do before the Tribunal to get a verdict in her favour - was to show an evidentiary link with the said Manmohan Sarkar as her father on the basis of documentary evidence. Of course, on the basis of her evidence and her pleading by way of written statement, she has stated the said Manmohan Sarkar to be her father. But the mere pleading or even oral deposition would not suffice to build that link evidence and in terms of the settled governing law, documentary evidence is essential to show that she was the daughter of the said Manmohan Sarkar. Towards this objective, the petitioner, as proceedee adduced in evidence and proved as Exhibit 2, a certificate issued by a Secretary of Sirajuli Gaon Panchayat in the district of Sonitpur. 15. In the said certificate, the petitioner has been indicated as the daughter of late Manmohan Sarkar, who had got married on Page No.# 8/10 11/01/1967 to Subudh Baishya, and thereafter migrated from Adabari village under Chariduar Revenue Circle of Sonitpur district. 16. The said certificate was not proved by calling the concerned Secretary who had issued the certificate, nor is it based on any contemporaneous records so as to successfully discharge the burden of proving the said document. Moreover, the certificate issued by the Secretary appears to be based on his personal knowledge. In this regard, paragraph-15 of Khudeja Khatun (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents may be reproduced herein below: “15. Ext. D is a certificate dated 15.06.2015 issued by the Secretary, Goriabori Gaon Panchayat certifying that Khudeja Khatoon was the daughter of Jonab Ali. At the top of this certificate, “Government of Assam” was prominently printed. It was also mentioned in the certificate that the same was issued on the basis of the evidence placed before the Secretary. 15.1. Firstly, this document does not appear to be a genuine document inasmuch as a Gaon Panchayat is not a department of the Govt. of Assam. Therefore, Gaon Panchayat is not authorised to use a letter head with “Govt. of Assam” printed therein. Secondly, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat did not testify before the Tribunal alongwith the evidence on the basis of which Ext. D certificate was issued to prove the certificate as well as the contents thereof. Therefore, this certificate was not proved. Thirdly, Supreme Court has clarified in Rupjan Begum Vs Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, that such a certificate of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary is by no means proof of citizenship. Such a certificate has to be verified at two stages. At the first stage, authenticity of the certificate itself is required to be verified to find out as to whether it is genuine or not. The second stage of verification relates to verification of the contents. There is nothing on record to show that Ext. D had undergone any such verification exercise. Therefore, Ext. D cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence.” (emphasis added) 17. The petitioner has also exhibited as Exhibit 3 the voter's ID card, but the same, even if accepted, indicates her age as 70 years and issued Page No.# 9/10 in 2013 and indicates the name of her husband as Subudh Baishya, rather than projected father Manmohan. In any case, the same would not be sufficient link documentary evidence in support of her claim for citizenship in terms of the law laid down in Md. Babul Islam (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The relevant paragraph-20.2 of the said decision may be reproduced herein below: “20.2 In so far Exhibit-7 Elector Photo Identity Card is concerned, besides not being proved, it is a post 25.03.1971 document. Besides, merely producing such an identity card in the absence of supporting evidence would not be proof of citizenship.” 18. That leaves us with the ration card, which was exhibited as Exhibit 4. Here also, in terms of the law laid down in Saru Sheikh (supra), the said ration card would not help in the case of the petitioner in proving her citizenship. In Saru Shikh (supra), it was held in para-16 that ration card by itself cannot be treated as a proof of one’s citizenship. 19. The learned Tribunal also mentioned in the impugned judgment that her name appeared for the first time in the voter's list of 2015 - even if that is accepted - at the age of 70 years, though she was born in 1952. It is indicated by the Tribunal that her name ought to have been inserted in the voter's list much earlier and that has not been explained from the side of the petitioner. It was held by the Tribunal that Exhibit 2, the certificate issued by the Sirajuli Secretary Goan Panchayat was not proved and it was not accepted. The Exhibit 3 voter's list was also not accepted by the Tribunal, as also the ration card exhibited as Exhibit 4. 20. As already discussed, the proof of the Gaon Panchayat certificate is Page No.# 10/10 inadequate to constitute linkage evidence with the father, with the projected father. 21. Secondly, the voter's ID card and the ration card on their own would also not constitute sufficient link evidence in support of her citizenship in view of the laws laid down in this regard as noticed above. 22. Consequently, upon perusing the materials and evidence and in the backdrop of the above discussion that - we come to the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the petitioner to be an illegal migrant post the stream of 25/03/971. 23. Accordingly, the impugned judgment & opinion dated 08.09.2018 passed by the learned Member, F.T Case No. 68/2016 is upheld and confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. 24. However, in terms of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to apply before the concerned authority seeking the benefit of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, and if the same is done so, necessary orders may be passed in accordance with law. 25 Interim order passed earlier on 19.12.2019 shall stand vacated. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant