Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010220262025 2026:GAU-AS:8093- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5927/2025 JAHERA BEGUM W/O LT. BAREK ALI, D/O- LT. ABDUL ALI, R/O- VILLAGE-HATIDUBI GAON, P.S- URIAMGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. PIN- 785601. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE ASSAM STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) GOLAGHAT Page No.# 2/14 DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621 -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocated for petitioners: Mr. S.A. Ahmed Advocate for Respondents: Mr. J. Payeng, SC, Home Deptt. Mr. G. Sarma, SC, NRC Mr. P. Sarma, GA, Assam, Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI Mr. S.S. Roy, CGC. Date on which judgment is reserved : 12.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.06.2026 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) 1. Heard Shri S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the NRC; Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, E.C.I; Shri P. Sarma, learned State Counsel Page No.# 3/14 and Shri S.S. Roy, learned CGC. 2. The petitioner, namely, Jahera Begum has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in filing this writ petition, aggrieved by the Judgment and Opinion dated 26.02.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No.FTG/1764/2011, (arising out of Police Enquiry No. 259/2010) - whereby the learned Tribunal returned an opinion against the petitioner by holding that she was unable to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and that she was an illegal migrant who had entered India on or after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory of Bangladesh without any valid documents. 3. The facts in brief may be noticed here under:- 4. A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police Border, Golaghat, under the Foreigners Act, 1946, vide Police Enquiry No. 259/2010 expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner Musstt. Jahera Begum, wife of Md. Barek Ali, of Village No-2, Hatidubi Gaon, under Uriamghat Police Station in the district of Golaghat, Assam. Accordingly, an opinion was sought for from the Foreigners Tribunal regarding her nationality. 5. Upon receipt of the reference, case was registered as mentioned above and notice was issued to the petitioner as proceedee and upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner, as proceedee appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement. 6. Thereafter, the proceeding started and during the proceeding, Page No.# 4/14 she adduced the evidence of 3(three) witnesses, being herself, her projected sister and her projected brother. She also exhibited 9(nine) nos. of documents. However, upon completion of the adjudication and upon perusing her evidence and documents, the learned Tribunal returned the finding against her as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that she is an Indian citizen by birth and that her father's name is Abdul Ali and her grandfather's name is Ahmed Ali and she was married to one Barek Ali. It is contended in the writ petition that the said ancestors of the petitioner have lived in Assam since 1955 or even earlier. There have been also casting votes in all the elections starting from 1955, 1961, 1965 and 1970 and also subsequently. The petitioner herself is stated to be a citizen of India by birth and that her name appeared for the first time in the voters list of 1985 and that she and her husband have also been casting their votes. 8. It is stated that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was without any justification and that the learned Tribunal, by misreading of evidence and not accepting the evidence rendered by the petitioner, wrongly arrived at the finding that she had illegally entered into India on or after 25th March, 1971. 9. As mentioned above, during the proceeding, the petitioner, upon being noticed, appeared and filed a written statement in which she denied being a foreigner and an illegal migrant and contended that she was indeed an Indian citizen by birth. In the written statement, Page No.# 5/14 she stated about her parents, namely, Abdul Ali @ Sekh Abdul Ali son of Ahmed Ali and her mother being Nashira Begum. She contended that they were permanent residents of Ekorani Gaon under the jurisdiction of Sarupathar Police Station in the district of Golaghat. She contended in the written statement that she was born and brought up at her parents' house at the said Ekorani Gaon, Sarupathar in the district of Golaghat. She mentioned her date of birth at the said Ekorani Gaon as 15.04.1968. She stated that even her father was born and brought up in the said village and is a citizen of India by birth, as also her mother, Nashira Begum. 10. The petitioner, as proceedee annexed various documents with her written statement. She mentioned in the written statement that in the electoral roll of 1955, the name of her father appeared, as also in the electoral roll of 1965. The proceedee also stated that in the electoral roll of 1970, the names of her parents as Abdul Ali and Nashira Khatun, wife of Abdul Ali, appeared against serial Nos. 36 and 37, respectively. The petitioner denied in her written statement that she had entered illegally after the cut-off date and that the proceeding should be dismissed. 11. During the proceeding, she adduced her evidence as DW-1, in which, she testified that the allegation of her being a foreigner is totally false and that she was born at village Devipur under the jurisdiction of Sarupathar Police Station in the district of Golaghat. She stated in her deposition that her grandfather was Ahmad Ali and father Abdul Ali and her mother was Nashira Begum. She testified that her Page No.# 6/14 father was originally inhabitant of village Ekorani Gaon in the district of Golaghat where he was born and brought up, but subsequently for livelihood, he shifted to village Devipur in the district of Golaghat. She testified that her father and mother cast their vote in the year 1965 at village Ekorani Gaon and that their names appeared in the said electoral roll which was exhibited as Exhibit-1. She also stated that their parents cast their vote in 1970 and a certified copy of the 1970 voters list was exhibited as Exhibit-2. She stated that her father was the only son of Ahmad Ali, but regarding herself, she stated that they are five siblings, being two brothers and three sisters. She also stated about her sister Sahara Begum @, who was a student of Rangmai Rajapukhuri L.P.School and adduced a certificate of her sister as Exhibit-3. She stated about her marriage to Barek Ali of Hatidubi Gaon within the jurisdiction of Sarupathar Police Station in the district of Golaghat and that she had cast her vote in 1993 in the area pertaining to the house of her in-laws and that her name was enlisted in the voters list along with her husband. She produced a certified copy of the 1993 electoral roll as Exhibit-4. Similarly, she exhibited a certified copy of the 2005 voters list as Exhibit-5. 12. The petitioner deposed that she belonged to Jolha community, which is categorized as OBC and she exhibited a caste certificate issued by the SDO, OBC Development Board, Sarupathar as Exhibit-6. She also exhibited a certificate from Koraighat Gaon Panchayat as Exhibit-7 regarding her residence. She stated that from the year 2011, she has not been able to cast her vote as she was declared a “D”voter. Page No.# 7/14 13. The aforementioned sister of the petitioner Sahara Begum @ Sahera Begum, adduced evidence as DW-2, wherein, she stated that Jahera Begum @ Jahira Begum is her sister and that the allegation about her sister being a foreigner is false and that their birthplace is at village Devipur under Sarupathar police station in the district of Golaghat. DW-2 also stated about her grandfather being Ahmad Ali, father being Abdul Ali and mother being Nashira Begum. She stated that her father was original inhabitant of village Ekorani where he was born and brought up but later due to livelihood he shifted to village Devipur. DW-2 stated about their parents casting their vote in 1965, as also in 1970. DW-2 stated about her siblings including Jahera Begum, the petitioner. She stated about the marriage of the petitioner with Barek Ali and that she cast her votes at her in-laws place in 1993 along with her husband. She stated about the caste certificate adduced in evidence by her sister. She also mentioned about her sister being marked as “D”voter since, 2011. 14. In cross-examination, DW-1 and DW-2 stated about being born at village Ekorani in the district of Golaghat. They have stated that they do not know the name of their grandparents but that their grandfather was Ahmad Ali and grandmother Panchan Khatun. They stated in cross-examination that their father was the only son of Ahmad Ali and that he was Abdul Ali, who initially lived at village Ekorani and later shifted to village Devipur and died there. They have stated in cross- examination that their parents have cast their vote at village Ekorani. DW-1 and DW-2 reiterated in cross-examination about their siblings. Page No.# 8/14 15. One Mahamad Ali, who is stated to be the brother of the petitioner, adduced evidence in favour of the petitioner as DW-3, in which, he stated that the allegation of her being a foreigner is false and that she is a citizen of India by birth. DW-3 stated about his grandfather being Ahmad Ali, father being Abdul Ali and mother being Nashira Begum. He further deposed that their family was originally inhabitants of village Ekorani in Golaghat, where his father and his brothers, sisters and himself were born. DW-3 stated about his parents names appearing in the voters list of 1965 and 1970. He stated about the marriage of the petitioner with Barek Ali and her casting vote at her in-laws' place. He himself, exhibited as Exhibit-8, the voters list of 1989 but stated that his father's name was strongly mentioned as Abdul Hussain instead of Abdul Ali. He also exhibited his voters identity card as Exhibit-9. He mentioned that he and his sisters were five siblings being two brothers, including himself and three sisters, including the petitioner and DW-2. He stated that in the voters list of 1985, his grandfather's name was wrongly recorded as Hussain instead of Ahmad Ali. His father's name was wrongly recorded as A. Hussain instead of Abdul Ali but that they are one and the same person. 16. In cross-examination, DW-3 reiterated that he was born at Ekorani village in the district of Golaghat and that the petitioner was his sister who was also born at village Ekorani. However, he expressed ignorance regarding her date of birth. He stated about being two brothers and three sisters, including the petitioner. He stated about shifting of the family to village Devipur. He stated about his grandfather being Ahmad Ali. He expressed ignorance as to whether Page No.# 9/14 their family had lived in Bangladesh at any time. He also stated that he does not know whether his grandfather cast his vote but stated that his father cast his vote from Ekorani. He could not tell the date of marriage of the petitioner but stated that she was married to Barek Ali. He denied the suggestion that he was not the son of Abdul Ali and denied that his father never resided at village Ekorani. He denied that the proceedee was not his younger sister. DW-3 denied that he and the petitioner were Bangladeshi nationals residing in Assam illegally. 17. Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, supporting the pleadings of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner has been wrongly targeted as a foreign national and that she is an Indian citizen by birth and that even her father and grandfather were born and brought up in India. It is submitted that sufficient evidence has been adduced regarding her linkage with Ahmad Ali, her grandfather, and Abdul Ali, her father, and that the same should have been accepted by the learned Tribunal in opining that she was not a foreigner as suspected in the police inquiry and reference. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence adduced by the petitioner, her sister and brother and submitted that the same constitutes cogent evidence which proves that the petitioner was an Indian citizen. The documents that she submitted by way of Gaon Panchayat certificate and caste certificate should have been accepted as sufficient link evidence with regard to her father and grandfather and therefore, the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal was wrong. Page No.# 10/14 19. On the other hand, Mr. J. Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, submits that there is no infirmity in the opinion of the Tribunal as the petitioner could not build up the vital link documentary evidence with her father and grandfather and that the documents which were discarded by the learned Tribunal were rightly done so and for correct reasons. The learned counsel for respondent referred to the case of Nur Begum v. Union of India, reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347. Summing up his submissions, Mr. Payeng submits that there is no infirmity in the opinion and that the same may be upheld. 20. We have perused the pleadings of the writ petition, the impugned judgment, the evidence and documents before the learned Tribunal at the time of adjudication and considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the decisions cited at the Bar. 21. It is well settled that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946, the burden of proof lies upon the proceedee to prove that he or she is not a foreigner and that he or she is an Indian citizen. The said burden has to be proved by the standard of preponderance of proof applicable to civil proceedings. By a catena of decisions laid down by this Court which hold the field, it is well settled that the proceedee in a reference proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal has to adduce cogent documentary evidence to show a linkage with an ancestor who was an Indian citizen prior to 25.03.1971. Oral evidence can be corroborative but documentary evidence is essential to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 22. In the written statement followed by the depositions of the Page No.# 11/14 petitioner, her sister and her brother, they have all stated about being born in Golaghat district in Assam, India and therefore, Indian citizens by birth. The witnesses in their cross-examination have denied that they are foreigners or any persons illegally entering into Assam after the cut-off date. Now, it remains to be seen as to whether that vital link documentary evidence with an ancestor, who was an Indian citizen, has been successfully made or not. Exhibit-1 is an electoral roll of 96, Sarupathar LAC of Assam, where the name of Abdul Ali, son of Ahmad Ali, figures at serial No. 20. This electoral roll pertains to the year 1965. If this is accepted, then it would indicate that the said Abdul Ali was really present in Assam, India in 1965 and who was an Indian citizen. The case of the petitioner is that the said Abdul Ali is the father of the petitioner and her siblings. Similarly, Exhibit-2 is an electoral roll of 1970 of the same LAC, where, the name of Abdul Ali, son of Ahmad Ali, figures at serial No.36. It can be reasonably held that the said Abdul Ali was an Indian citizen whose name appeared in the electoral rolls of 1965 and 1970. 23. To build up the linkage, the petitioner, as proceedee, produced a school certificate as Exhibit-3 from Rangmai Rajapukhuri L.P. School. The certificate is dated 27.06.2019 and it mentions the name of Sahara Begum, daughter of Abdul Ali. The learned Tribunal has not accepted the said certificate as the author has not appeared before the Tribunal to prove the genuineness of the document and truthfulness of its contents. The learned Tribunal also cast doubts on the said document on the ground that it was issued on 27.06.2019, which was about 55 years of leaving school of the petitioner, Sahara Begum. Page No.# 12/14 24. In our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal in not accepting the said certificate as linkage evidence as the same has not been proved in the manner required. Similarly, the caste certificate issued by the OBC Development Board, Dhansiri Sarupathar, exhibited as Exhibit-6 was also stated to be not proved by appearing of any official or issuing authority to prove its genuineness and accordingly, the same was not accepted. 25. In the said caste certificate, the name of the petitioner is written as Sahara Begum, daughter of Abdul Ali. Similarly, Exhibit-7 was a Panchayat Certificate in the name of Sahara Begum, wife of Barek Ali regarding the residence. This document creates a linkage with regard to Barek Ali, her husband, rather than Abdul Ali, her projected father. 26. Nevertheless, this document was also discarded on the ground that it was not proved in the manner required. We are the considered opinion that vital link documentary evidence produced by the proceeding to show a linkage with an Indian citizen ancestor has to be proved as per the procedure required under law. 27. In the instant case, the caste certificate as well as the school certificate, which were used to create that linkage with projected father Abdul Ali were simply adduced in evidence without the testimony of any issuing authority or any person who could vouch for the truthfulness of the contents and the authenticity of its issuance. Therefore, we are unable to find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the said evidence. Page No.# 13/14 28. A copy of the Electoral Roll of 1985 was annexed with the writ petition in which the name of Jahera Khatun figures and indicated as daughter of Abdul. The other names indicated are A. Hussain, Mohamad and Sakat. However, this document was not adduced in evidence or exhibited properly during the proceeding. Therefore, even if it is assumed to indicate a possible linkage, it cannot be considered at this stage. 29. At this point, the relevant paragraph of Nur Begum (supra) may be reproduced herein below:- "9. On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion/order upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. We find no infirmity in the findings and opinion recorded by the Tribunal. We would observe that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal. No case is made out that the impugned opinion/order was rendered without affording opportunity of hearing or in violation of the principles of natural justice and/or that it suffers from illegality on any ground of having been passed by placing reliance on evidence which is legally impermissible in law and/or that the Tribunal refused to admit admissible evidence and/or that the findings finds no support by any evidence at all. In other words, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case demonstrating any errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of the impugned opinion." 30. Though the petitioner has adduced evidence indicating that Abdul Ali was an Indian citizen by virtue of his name figuring in the Electoral Roll of 1965 and 1970 but due to the infirmities in Exhibit-3 Page No.# 14/14 and Exhibit-6 regarding her linkage with the said Abdul Ali and consequent discarding of this documentary evidence, we have no option but to come to the finding and conclusion that there is no legally proven link documentary evidence to prove that Abdul Ali, son of Ahmad Ali, who was an Indian citizen, is indeed the projected father of the petitioner. 31. Consequently, we do not find infirmity in the impugned judgment and opinion dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No.FTG/1764/2011, (arising out of Police Enquiry No. 259/2010) and the same is accordingly upheld and confirmed. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 32. Interim order stands vacated. 33. The writ petition stands disposed of. 34. Send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant