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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 495

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SHAMIMA JAHAN, JJ.
Aysha Khatun, W/o. Mainuddin Ahmed – Petitioner 
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Home Deptt. And  Ors.  – Respondents 
WP(C)/3423 of 2018
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. M Dey, Ms. P Deb, Ms. N Deb, Mrs. A Basumatary, Mr. M. Deb, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sc, F.T, Mr J Payeng, Mr. J. Payeng, standing counsel, Mr. S.P. Choudhury, Cgc, Mr. H.K. Hazarik, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. Kuli for Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel

A foreigner's status must be proven by credible and verifiable evidence linking them to claimed Indian ancestors; mere appearances in voter rolls are insufficient.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 - The petitioner assailed the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner, claiming citizenship by birth and failing to prove familial connections to her alleged parents listed in historic voter rolls. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence supporting her claims. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 16, 21)

(B) Evidence - The petitioner presented several voter lists and a school certificate, but these were deemed unreliable due to lack of proper authentication and connections to her claimed lineage. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence. (Paras 14, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed citizenship by presenting voter lists from 1966, 1970, and subsequent years, alongside evidence of marital and familial relationships. The Tribunal found discrepancies and insufficient proof linking her to her claimed lineage. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's opinion, determining the evidence provided did not prove the petitioner was born to citizens of India, thus sustaining the initial ruling of foreign status. (Paras 21)

Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the petitioner as a bona fide citizen, and whether the Tribunal's refusal to accept additional documentation was erroneous. (Paras 8, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court confirmed that lack of verifiable evidence linking the petitioner to her claimed ancestors warranted the Tribunal's conclusion and found no grounds for intervention in the Tribunal's decision. (Paras 16, 21)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims citizenship based on family history. (Para 2 , 3)
2. supporting documents and affidavits presented. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
3. tribunal declared petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence. (Para 7 , 15 , 16)
4. petitioner argues for review and further evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 11)
5. court discusses procedural issues with petitioner's review application. (Para 17 , 19)
6. court upheld tribunal's decision, dismissing the petition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Ms. M. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the FT and Border matters, representing respondent nos. 1, 4 and 6; Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.2; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate for respondent no.3; and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.5.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Aysha Khatun, has assailed the opinion dated 03.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 5th , Goalpara, in F.T. Case No. F.T/5/84/MA/17 [arising out of IMDT Reference Case No. 854/04], thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner as suspected in the reference case.

3) On receipt of notice, the petitioner entered appearance before the learned Foreigners Tribunal. On 01.04.2017, she had filed her written statement, denying the allegations and stating that she is a bonafide citizen of India by birth and was born and brought up at village- Rama Para Nonke under P.S. Baghbar in the district of Barpeta in the year 1956 approximately. Ashan Ullah Bepari and Ummekulsum Nessa are her parents. She is a literate woman. Abdul Aziz and Gulzan Nessa were her grandparents and Ahammad Ali and Mochiron Nessa were her maternal grandparents. She has disclosed the names of four children of her grandparents and eight siblings including herself. The petitioner claimed that the names of her parents appeared in the Voter list of 1966 and 1970 at village Rama Para Nonke under 52 Baghbar LAC. She got married with Moinuddin Ahmed, son of Abul Hussain of village Ramapara Pam under P.S. Baghbar in the district of Barpeta and she shifted to her matrimonial home. The petitioner has stated that she along with her husband had shifted from village Ramapara Pamto village Bamunpara,under P.S. Matia in the district of Goalpara, under 37 Goalpara East LAC, wherein she is staying till date. She has six children and disclosed their names. She has stated that although she had applied several times for enrolling her name along with the name of her husband before the Enumeration Officer of Bamunpara village, after shifting but due to unavoidable circumstances her name along with her husband was not enrolled and their names appeared in the Voters list of 1985 for the first time and she had cast her vote for the first time in the year 1985 along with her husband. Her name also appeared in the Voters list of 1997 and 2005 along with her husband. She has also stated that the name of her father has been stated as AshmatullaBepari instead of Ashan Ullah Bepari in the case record and both are names of same and one person. Accordingly, the petitioner had prayed for dismissing the proceeding and to declare her as a bonafide citizen of India by birth.

4) The petitioner had filed her evidence-on-affidavit on 26.04.2017, wherein she had reiterated the statement made in the written statement. In support of her evidence, the petitioner had exhibited the following documents viz., Certified copy of Voter List of 1966 (Ext.A); Certified copy of Voter List of 1970 (Ext.B); Certified copy of Voter List of 1985 (Ext.C); Certified copy of Voter List of 1997 (Ext.D); Certified copy of Voter List of 2005 (Ext.E); Photostat copy of her School Certificate (Ext.F). She was cross-examined on 23.05.2017.

5) Thereafter on 10.07.2017, one Md. Nur

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