1. In terms of the earlier orders passed, the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department has filed an affidavit through its Joint Secretary, Political Department.

2. The petitioner was declared to be a foreigner way back in 1995 (20/02/1995) by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 21/93(B) (State Vs. Michiran @ Michiran Nessa). She was declared to be a foreigner within the stream of 01-01-1966 to 25-03-1971 requiring her name to be registered with consequential deletion of her name from the voter list.

3. The writ petition was filed on 22/09/2014 after a delay of 19 (nineteen) years. Taking up the writ petition for consideration, the State respondents were directed to apprise the Court as to what action it had initiated pursuant to the impugned declaration made by the Foreigners Tribunal. It was noticed that insptie of the said declaration, the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the voter list of 1997 violating the provisions of the Citizenship Act. It was also recorded in the order that because of such approach on the part of the State Government, the concerned officers are liable for appropriate action.

4. In the affidavit filed by the Government of Assam through the Joint Secretary, Political Department, while highlighting the purported action plan towards apprehending the declared foreigners and deletion of their names from the voter list, it has been stated that in the instant case, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the electoral rolls during the summary revision of 2014. It has also been stated that the letter dated 06/04/1995 of the Special FRRO, Barpeta addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta for deletion of the name of the petitioner is not traceable in the office. The affidavit further states that the responsibility of deletion of the names of the foreigners from the electoral rolls is on the Electoral Registration Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of the District. It has further been stated that the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam and the District Election Officer have been asked by the State Government to enquiry into the matter as to why immediately after the declaration made in 1995, name of the petitioner was not deleted.

5. From the above narration of fact, what has emerged is that although the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner within the stream of 01/01/1966 to 25/03/1971 requiring deletion of her name from the electoral rolls, but her name continued till 2014, making a mockery of the declaration made by the Foreigners Tribunal and also the provisions of the Citizenship Act.

6. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, there is no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing “external aggression and internal disturbance” on account of large scale migration of Bangladeshi Nationals. It, therefore, deemed that the authority to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbances as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution of India.

7. Once a proceedee is declared to be a foreigner within the stream of 01/01/1966 to 25/03/1971, it is incumbent on the part of the authority to delete his/her name from the electoral roll. It is also incumbent on the part of the proceedee to register his/her name with the Registering Authority. However, in the instant case, there is absolute and total failure on the part of the State Government to initiate any action against the proceedee i.e. the petitioner, rather her name continued to appear in the electoral rolls till 2014, when this writ petition was entertained. It is only because of the intervention of this Court, her name came to be deleted from the electoral roll. This speaks volume of deliberate inaction on the part of the State Government and its officials, which require immediate intervention of the Central Government to protect the interest of the indigenous people