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) 2084

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, JJ.
Maya Rani Sarkar, D/o. Dhirendra Mandal @ Dhiren Chandra Mandal, W/o. Harihar Sarkar @ Harihari Sarkar @ Haricharan Sarkar - Petitioner 
Versus
The Union Of India, Through- The Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.1140 of 2019 
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Biswas, Mr. F.A. Hassan, Ms. J. Borah, Sushmita Sengupta.
For the Respondent: Asstt. S.G.I., SC, F.T, Mr. J. Payeng, SC, NRC, Ms. A. Verma, SC, ECI, Mr. D. Baruah.

Discrepancies in names should not automatically render evidence inadmissible, particularly when live witnesses can corroborate lineage, requiring fair procedural questioning.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition against Foreigners Tribunal's opinion declaring petitioner a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream - Petitioner claimed Indian citizenship based on documents including voter lists and a Token for Migrants. Discrepancies in names led to disbelief of evidence by the tribunal - Court found that evidence was improperly discarded without proper questioning and remanded for fresh evaluation. (Paras 3-14)

(B) Evidence - Standard of proof - The court held that discrepancies in names alone cannot disqualify evidence, especially when live witnesses are available to affirm lineage. Evidence should be viewed in its entirety and with due regard to the context in which it was presented. (Paras 14-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming citizenship, presented various documents including voter lists and a Token for Migrants, asserting her father's migration from East Pakistan. The Foreigners Tribunal declared her a foreigner based on name discrepancies.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision was vitiated by improper consideration of evidence and the court required a fresh opinion.

Issues: The court examined whether the Tribunal justified its disbelief of the petitioner's evidence based on name discrepancies.

Ratio Decidendi: Proper procedural fairness requires that questions about evidence discrepancies be put to witnesses; failure to do so renders the Tribunal's decision flawed.

Result: The opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal is set aside and remanded for a fresh opinion.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's citizenship claim details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. testimonies and evidence presented. (Para 7 , 8 , 12)
3. tribunal's basis for disbelief in evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 13)
4. issues with credibility of demographic details. (Para 11 , 14 , 15)
5. court's decision to remand case for reevaluation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. procedural directives post-remand. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abayapuri, in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No.257/2016, corresponding to BNGN IMDT Case no. 506/2003, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. Upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and filed her written statement in defence and took a plea that she is a citizen of India. It was stated that the father of the petitioner, namely, Dhirendra Mondal, along with his father, late Budheswar Mondal, had migrated from the then Maimansingha district of East Pakistan to India and their names were entered in the Refugee and Rehabilitation Department and they were issued a “Token for Migrants” by the Govt. of West Bengal and they settled at village Mohanpur under North Salmara Police Station in the district of Goalpara. The father of the petitioner, along with his brother, Fotik Chandra Mondal, shifted their residence to village Nayapara (Nowapara) Part-I under Bijni Police Station, as it was then, now Manikpur Police Station, in the Goalpara district. The name of the petitioner’s father was enrolled in the voter’s list of 1970 as Dhiren Mondal instead of his correct name of Dhirendra Mondal and his name along with his father’s name also appeared in the voter list of 1971 under 34 No. Abhayapuri North LAC. The names of the father and mother of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1985 of village Nowapara Part-1 under 34 Abayapuri North LAC and in this voter list the name of the father of the petitioner appeared as Dhiren Chandra Mondal instead of Dhirendra Mondal. The petitioner studied upto Class-X. She was born in the year 1979 and she had married to Sri Harihar Sarkar of village Baripukhri Part-I under Abhayapuri Police Station in the district of Bongaigaon. The name of the petitioner was enrolled in the voter list in the year 2005.

4. The petitioner had explained that she was married on attaining the age of 18 years and her name was not enrolled in the voter list along with her parents because immediately after her marriage she started to live with her husband. The name of the petitioner also appeared in the voters list of 2008, 2011, 2016. The petitioner has also a PAN card issued by the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that she is a citizen of India and had prayed that the case against her may be dropped.

5. In support of her case, the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1 and reiterated the statements made in the writ petition. The petitioner had exhibited the “Token for Migrants” as Ext.1; certified copy of the voters list of 1970 as Ext.2; certified copies of the voters lists of 1971 as Ext.3; certified copies of voters list of 1985 as Ext.4; school certificate dated 29.07.2016 as Ext.5; certified copies of the voters lists of 2005, 2011 and 2016 as Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8, and her PAN card was exhibited as Ext.9.

6. The records reveal that the petitioner was not cross-examined by the Govt. Advocate nor any questions were asked to the petitioner by the Court.

7. The petitioner has

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