IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, NELSON SAILO, JJ.
Safara Begum @ Sapara Begum @ Chapara Begum, W/o. Islam Uddin, D/o. Late Abdul Karim - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. - Respondents
Review Pet. No. 35 of 2022
Decided On : 20-08-2024
Review - Citizenship - Article 226 - The Court discussed the principles governing review petitions, emphasizing the limited grounds for review, including errors apparent on the face of the record and the necessity for new evidence. The Court found no merit in the review petition due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a review of a previous order dismissing her writ petition challenging a Foreigners Tribunal's declaration of her as a foreigner. The petitioner claimed citizenship based on family history and various documents, but the Tribunal's decision was upheld by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the record or provide new evidence that warranted a review. The delay in filing the review petition was also deemed excessive and inadequately explained.
Issues: Whether the review petition was maintainable given the inordinate delay and whether the petitioner presented sufficient grounds for review.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that review petitions must meet strict criteria, including the demonstration of errors apparent on the record or the introduction of new evidence, which the petitioner failed to do.
Result: The review petition was dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and lack of merit.
JUDGMENT :
Nelson Sailo, J.
Heard Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the review petitioner/writ petitioner, Mr. J Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department for respondent Nos. 2 & 4, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for respondent No.5 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 3.
2. The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioner (petitioner) seeking review of the Order dated 05.09.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5466/2016 by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Aggrieved with the Order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-1, Karimganj in FT Case No. 1868/2012 (State Vs. Smt. Safara Begum) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 5466/2016 before this Court. This Court, upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of the records of the case, dismissed the writ petition vide Order dated 05.09.2018.
4. Against the order of dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No. 40275/2019. The SLP was accompanied by I.A No. 193102/2019 for condonation of delay in filing and IA No. 193104/2019 for condonation of delay in refiling/curing the defects and also by I.A No. 193105/2019 seeking permission to file additional documents/facts/Annexures. The SLP was, however, dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 08.01.2020 with liberty to the petitioner to file review before this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, on 16.02.2022 filed the instant review petition.
5. Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that review of the Order dated 05.09.2018 is being sought by the petitioner because of the fact that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. He submits that due to financial hardship and Covid-19, the petitioner could not approach this Court after the Order dated 08.01.2020 was passed by the hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was born around 1973 at village Routhgram under Karimganj Police Station in the then district of Cachar and now Karimganj district, Assam. For better prospect, the father of the petitioner shifted to Rongpur after 1990 and since then, his family members have been residing there. The father and mother of the petitioner are Adul Karim @ Ang Karim and Rahima Bibi. Her father is no more but mother is alive. The grandfather of the petitioner is late Kuti Mia who had three children viz; Abdul Majid, Sorbul Bibi and the petitioner’s father and they all are no more. The petitioner has four (4) siblings viz; Reja Begum, Rashid Ahmed, Jubera Khatun and Nomina Begum. The petitioner got married on 18.07.1995 with Islam Uddin, S/o. Kutub Ali at village Ranirpar under Ratabari Police Station in the district of Karimganj, Assam by executing Kabin Nama (marriage document). The Secretary of Bhairab Nagar Gaon Panchayat issued a Certificate for the purpose of NRC updation to the petitioner on 02.07.2015 which was countersigned by the Circle Officer, Ramkrishna Nagar Revenue Circle, Karimganj certifying that the petitioner is the daughter of late Abdul Karim and got married on 18.07.1995 with Islam Uddin, S/o late Kutub Ali of Ranipar, Karimganj district, Assam. The said Secretary again issued another Certificate to the petitioner on 05.02.2016 certifying that she is the daughter of late Abdul Karim and Rahima Bibi of village Rongpur under the Police Station of Ramkrishna Nagar in the district of Karimganj, Assam.
7. The learned counsel submits that the name of the petitioner appeared in the voters list of 1994 along with her parents for the first time under 01-Ratabari (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC) in the district of Karimganj, Assam. The name of her father, mother, uncle and others appeared in the voters list of 1966 at village Routhgram, PS - K
Vedanta Limited vs. Goa Foundation & Ors.
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors.
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs. Bikartan Das & Ors.
S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors.
Rupajan Begum Vs. Union of India
State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors.
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius
Review petitions must demonstrate clear errors or new evidence; mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings is insufficient for review.
A review petition must show an error apparent on the record or new evidence; the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner under the Foreigners Act.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish their citizenship, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Review jurisdiction is restricted to correcting patent errors or addressing newly discovered evidence unavailable through due diligence. It cannot be used to re-argue settled issues, and registry inc....
A party who fails to discharge the burden of proof regarding citizenship and allows an inordinate, unexplained duration to elapse before seeking legal recourse is not entitled to equitable relief, as....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition is not maintainable unless there is an error apparent on the face of the records.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the alleged foreigner, and failure to establish this can lead to a declaration of illegal migration.
Review petitions must demonstrate a material error on record; the mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a re-hearing of one's case.
The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.