SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1488

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
Pranati Hazong @ Pronoti Bala Hajong – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 3992 OF 2019
Decided on : 13-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. R C DAS Advocate
For the Respondent: ASSTT.S.G.I.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that proper procedural safeguards must be followed in citizenship determinations, emphasizing the necessity for thorough investigation and consideration of evidence by authorities.

Headnote:

FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL - CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION - Foreigners Act, 1946; Citizenship Act, 1955; Assam Accord - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the determination of citizenship, particularly focusing on the Foreigners Act and the Citizenship Act. It emphasized the importance of proper verification and the legal duty of the Electoral Registration Officer to assess evidence before making referrals to the Foreigners Tribunal. The court found that the lack of thorough investigation and application of mind by the authorities led to an unjust referral, which violated the petitioner's rights.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Pranati Hazong, was referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal to determine her citizenship status, with allegations that she entered Assam after 25.03.1971. She presented a relief eligibility certificate from 1965, indicating her family's presence in Assam prior to the cutoff date.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Electoral Registration Officer failed to properly consider the local verification report, which indicated the petitioner was born in Assam in 1969. The court criticized the casual approach of the authorities and the Foreigners Tribunal in handling the case, leading to a legal injury to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was correctly referred to the Foreigners Tribunal based on the evidence of her citizenship and the procedural adherence of the authorities involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Electoral Registration Officer had a legal duty to thoroughly investigate and consider all relevant evidence before making a referral to the Foreigners Tribunal. The failure to do so constituted a violation of the petitioner's rights.

Final Decision: The court set aside the referral and opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal, ordering the Electoral Registration Officer to pay costs to the petitioner and affirming her legal rights under the law.

ORDER :

A.M. BUJOR BARUA, J.

Heard Mr. P Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 being the authorities under the Union of India, Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, 6 and 7 being the authorities under the Home Department of the Government of Assam, Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 being the authorities under the Election Commission of India and Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 being the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji.

2. The respondents no. 4 and 5 stand deleted from the array of the respondents inasmuch as the learned counsel cannot be a respondent in the writ petition.

3. The petitioner Pranati Hazong @ Pronoti Bala Hajong had been referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2, Dhemaji for an opinion as to whether she is a person who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory subsequent to 25.03.1971, resulting in registration of FT Case No. 275/2017. Before the Tribunal the petitioner had exhibited the relief eligibility certificate issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India dated 19.06.1965. The said relief certificate had been issued in the name of Surjyo Mohan Hajong by providing him to be head of the family.

4. The particulars of the members of the family who had migrated along with the head of the family are as extracted:

    “7. Particulars of the members of the family migrated (including the head of the family)

Name Relationship with head of family Age/Sex Education Previous occupation

1 2 3 4 5

1. Surjo Mohal Hajong H/F 30/M IV Cultivation

2. Smt. Koushala Hajong wife 21/F III “

3. Prodip Kr. Hajong 6/M “

4. Shrimati Pronoti Bala Hajong 3/F “

5. A reading of the relief eligibility certificate itself goes to show that the petitioner Pronoti Bala Hajong is the daughter of Surjyo Mohan Hajong in whose favour the relief certificate had been issued as the head of the family.

6. We have also take note of as to under what circumstance the petitioner was referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for an opinion as to whether she is a person who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971.

7. The records reveal that the reference was as per the ‘format for making reference to competent authority in case of suo moto local verification’ issued under the signature of the Electoral Registration Officer, 114 Jonai (ST), LAC. The reference by the Electoral Registration Officer shows that the Election Commission of India had ordered intensive revision of electoral rolls for the 114 (ST) Jonai Assembly Constituency in Assam and that house to house enumeration was done from 2nd August, 2004 to 3rd September, 2004. Paragraph 5 of the format under the signature of Electoral Registration Officer provides that the Electoral Registration Officer of the Assembly Constituency had doubts about the citizenship of the petitioner and got the matter verified by an ‘on the spot local verification’. The ‘format for verification of the officer’s report’ which apparently is the local verification report indicated in the reference by the Electoral Registration Officer is also available.

8. A reading of the signed ‘format for verification of officer’s report’ under the signature of the local verification officer dated 16.02.2005, although the name and designation of the verification officer is not clearly readable, makes it discernable that the format was filled upto the Clause 7 which shows the name of the petitioner, her address, her husband’s name, date of birth and the place of birth. The date of birth is shown to be 16.12.1969 and the place of birth to be Nalbari. If the information had already been collected that the petitioner was born on 16.12.1969 and her place of birth is Nalbari, we see no reason as to how the petitioner can be suspected to be person who may have entered the State of Assam from the specified territory subsequent to 25.03.1971. But what is more intriguing is that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top