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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1166

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ.
Smt. Joytan Bibi, W/o. Nousad Ali - Petitioner 
Versus
The Union Of India, Rep. By The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Department Of Home and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.500 Of 2017
Decided On : 08-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.C. Dey, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. J. Sarma, CGC.
For the State Respondent:Mr. H.K. Hazarika, Govt. Advocate.
For FT & NRC : Mr. G. Sarma, Standing Counsel.
For ECI : Mr. M. Islam, Standing Counsel.

A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 - Challenge to opinion declaring petitioner as foreigner of post- 25.03.1971 stream - The petitioner assailed the Tribunal's opinion for lacking consideration of evidence and providing insufficient grounds for suspicion - The court emphasized that all evidence must be duly considered by the Tribunal - Impugned opinion was found to have vitiated due to non-application of mind regarding available evidence. (Paras 2, 24, 29)

(B) Judicial review in quasi-judicial proceedings - The Tribunal's ruling must consider all relevant evidence and materials before reaching a conclusion to ensure valid decision-making. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended her identity as a genuine Indian citizen, providing multiple documents like voter lists and certificates to prove her citizenship through ancestry and historical records. However, her claims of citizenship were dismissed by the Tribunal, which failed to appropriately consider the evidence presented.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal did not take into account all relevant facts and evidence leading to the impugned opinion being set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Issues: The court examined the adequacy of the evidence for establishing citizenship and the procedural propriety of the Tribunal's assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a Tribunal must apply due diligence in considering all evidence presented, and upon finding non-compliance with this obligation, the court directed a remand for a fresh opinion.

Result: Writ petition allowed with remand for a fresh opinion.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's citizenship claim and evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. insufficient grounds and irregularities in investigation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. legal and procedural considerations for citizenship. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. delegation of powers related to foreigner verification. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. reiteration of evidence evaluation and judicial obligation. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. court's directive for a fresh opinion on evidence. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned CGC for the Union of India; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC and Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Jaytan Bibi, has assailed the opinion dated 08.11.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.(8th), Dhubri in FT Case No. 8/149/GKJ/2015, bearing FT Case No. 4645/GKJ/2011, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 5917/98, by which she was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3) On receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had filed her written statement on 19.12.2015 and claimed that she was a genuine citizen of India and there was no reasonable ground to declare her as foreign national. She had stated that before her marriage with Nausad Ali of village- Kaimari Part-V, she was residing with her parents at village- Shilghagri, under Boxirhat P.S., Dist. Coochbehar, West Bengal. Her father’s name is Abbas Ali Sk. @ Sk. Abbas, whose name is recorded in the voter list of 1966 of village- Balakuti under Tufanganj (SC) Assembly Constituency. Her mother’s name is Surjya Bibi @ Surjya Bewa and her brother’s name is Ismail Miya. Later on, her father had shifted his village to Silghagri and on 02.11.1981, he had purchased a plot of land from Jafor Ali Sk. The name of her father is recorded as final khatian holder vide khatian no. 45, Mouza- Silghagri, Coochbehar, West Bengal and the names of her parents were recorded in the voter list of 1975 of the said village. She had stated that her name was entered in ration-card on 18.11.1988 as Mossamad Jayton Nessa. After her marriage with Nausad Ali, she has been residing with her husband at village Kaimari Part-V and her name is entered in enumeration list of 1997 and 2004. Her mother, Surjya Bibi @ Surjya Bewa has an election identity card.

4) In her written statement, the petitioner had annexed the following documents, viz., (1) Gaon Panchayat Certificate from Bhanukumari-II Gaon Panchayat; (2) certified copy of the voter list of 1966; (iii) sale deed; (4) ration card; (5) enumeration list of 1997; (6) enumeration list of 2004; (7) final khatian; (8) voter list of 1975; (9) voter identity card.

5) Thereafter, on 03.02.2016, the petitioner had filed her evidence-on-affidavit as DW-1 and by reiterating what has already been stated in her written statement, exhibited the Gaon Panchayat certificate (Ext.1); copy of application for information issued by O/C, Election, S.D.O. Office, Tufanganj containing remark that Sekh Abbas, son of Ajimuddin of village- Balakuti was an elector in the year 1966 under Tufanganj (SC) A.C. in part no. 51, serial no. 44 (Ext.2); sale deed (Ext.3); ration card (Ext.4); enumeration list of 1997 (Ext.5); enumeration list of 2004 (Ext.6); final khatian (Ext.7); voter list of 1975 (Ext.8); elector voter identity card (Ext.9); sale deed dated 25.01.1965 by which her mother and father had purchased land (Ext.10); enumeration list of 1993 (Ext.11). On 25.02.2016, the petitioner was examined by the learned Tribunal and discharged.

6) In support of her case, the petitioner had examined Ismail Miya, her projected broth

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