The judgment emphasizes the quasi-judicial nature of marking individuals as doubtful voters, the need for timely decisions based on the Tribunal's opinion, and the legal provisions under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A Matlib, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Baruah, learned Standing Council, Election Commission of India. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State Coordinator, National Register of Citizens (NRC).

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to remove the tag of doubtful (D) voter against their names in the electoral roll or in the alternative, to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal to finally determine their nationality status.

3. Grievance of the petitioners is that they are residents of Messamara Tea Estate in the district of Golaghat following marriage of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Abdul Gani and petitioner No.2 is her son. They were marked as doubtful (D) voters in the year 1997. Since then, no consequential steps have been taken. As a result, citizenship status of the petitioners has remained in a state of uncertainty for more than 20 years now.

4. Hence this writ petition.

5. Notice in this case was issued on 23.05.2018.

6. Mr. D. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no record in the office of the District Election Officer, Golaghat regarding making of any reference in respect of the petitioners after marking them as doubtful (D) voters.

7. In this connection it may be mentioned that this Court has elaborately gone into this aspect of the matter in a recent decision passed in WP(C) No. 91/2019 (Sayam Uddin Vs. Union of India) disposed of on 19.02.2019. Relevant portion of the order dated 19.02.2019 is extracted hereunder :-

"11. In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful "D" voters in the electoral rolls after local verification.

12. Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise.

12.1. As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas.

12.2. As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision.

12.3. As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was finally published.

12.4. This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Comm