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) 600

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SHAMIMA JAHAN, JJ.
Abdus Chattar @ Sattar Ali D/o Lt Mahej Ali - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.4308 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.H.R. Ahmed Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.G.Sarma, SC Home Department Mr.P. Sarma, GA, Assam, Mr.N.Kalita, Mr A.I. Ali, SC, ECI

A quasi-judicial authority violates the principles of natural justice when it assumes the role of both prosecutor and judge. Specifically, the presiding officer of a tribunal conducting the cross-examination of a witness in the absence of a government representative is procedurally illegal and warrants a remand.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Foreigners' Tribunal proceedings - Procedural fairness - Principles of natural justice - A quasi-judicial authority acting as both prosecutor and judge violates the principles of natural justice - Cross-examination of a witness by the presiding officer of a tribunal in the absence of a government representative is impermissible and constitutes a procedural illegality - Such practice undermines the impartiality of the adjudication process. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an opinion declaring him a foreigner. The tribunal rejected the petitioner's documents, including electoral rolls and land records, citing discrepancies and lack of corroboration. During the proceedings, the presiding officer conducted the cross-examination of the petitioner in the absence of any government counsel.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the record clearly indicated the presiding officer performed the cross-examination of the petitioner. This procedure is legally flawed as it conflates the roles of the prosecutor and the judge, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and compromising the fairness of the adjudication.

Issues: Whether the cross-examination of a party by the presiding officer of a tribunal, in the absence of a government representative, constitutes a procedural illegality warranting a remand of the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a tribunal cannot assume the role of a prosecutor while acting as a judge. Conducting a cross-examination by the court itself is impermissible and violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating a fresh adjudication by the tribunal.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned opinion set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision.

Table of Content
1. procedures for citizenship verification and evidentiary burden. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. admissibility of translated documents and procedural fairness in tribunals. (Para 8 , 9)
3. standard of evidence required to establish linkage with progenitors. (Para 10 , 11)
4. tribunals must not act as prosecutors; court-led cross-examination violates natural justice. (Para 12)
5. remand of proceedings for de novo fair adjudication. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

(Shamima Jahan, J.)

Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr N Kalita, learned counsel representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI.

2. By this application filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated 31.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, Assam, in FT Case No. BNGN/FT/521/07, corresponding to IM(D)T Case No. 164 of 2005, whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream.

FACTS

3. The petitioner had stated that he was born and brought up at Village- Shoilbari (Mulbari), PS-North Salmara, in the district of Goalpara, Assam, and that he is the son of Late Mahej Ali and Jarina Bewa, and that he is permanently residing at Village No. 6, Jamdoha, P.S.-Manikpur, in the district of Bongaigaon along with his family members.

4. The petitioner further stated that in the voters’ list of 1970, his parents’ names were recorded as Mahej Ali, son of Taher Ali and Jarina Khatun at Serial No. 43 and 44, respectively, at Village-350 Malbari Balarchar, under Abhayapuri (SC) LA 42. He further stated that his father’s name was recorded in Final Khatian Form No. VII, as Mahej Ali under Khatian No. 57, Village-Malbari, in the district of Goalpara. He, thereafter, stated that in the voters’ list of 1985, his name was recorded as a voter along with his mother, under 34 Abhayapuri North LAC. He also relied on the Jamabandi, wherein it was shown that he was one of the owner of a plot of land under Dag No. 155, Patta No. 09, and in the said Jamabandi, his name was shown as Chattar Ali, son of Mahej Ali. The petitioner also relied upon the family Ration Card, issued by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Bongaigaon, wherein his name was recorded along with other family members. Thereafter, he relied on the certificate issued by the Secretary of Bhandara Gaon Panchayat, where he was shown to be the son of Mohej Uddin of Village-Jamdoha in the district of Bongaigaon. He also stated that there are some spelling mistakes in the name of his grandfather, father and mother, and that there were also some anomalies with regard to the age, but the same may be ignored and they may be considered as one and the same person. However, he stated that the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon, doubted his citizenship and on the basis of the report of the ERO, the SP(B) referred the case to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, which was subsequently registered and a notice was issued by the Foreigners’ Tribunal to the petitioner.

5. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 3rd of May, 2016, stating, inter alia, that his father’s name was Mahaz Ali @ Mahej Ali @ Mayej Ali, and that his father’s name appeared in the NRC 1951, vide Serial No. 2, House No. 4, at Village-Malbari, in the district of Goalpara. He further stated in the written statement that his father’s name appeared in the voters’ list of 1970. He then stated that his name appeared in the voters’ list of 1985 and that he was an absolute owner and possessor of a plot of land under Bijni Revenue Circle and that he also obtained a Ration Card.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his evidence-on- affidavit, wherein, he made similar stateme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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