order

(oral)

21-03-2022 [N. Kotiswar Singh, J]

Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. SGI for respondent no.1; Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Standing Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent nos.3 & 5 ; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, for respondent no.7, Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent no.4 and Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent nos.2 & 4.

2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned ex parte order dated

06.06.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (3rd), Dhemaji, Jonai, Assam in F.T.(3) Case no.FT(DV) 1638/18 by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post 1971 stream. In the order dated 06.06.2019, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (3rd), Dhemaji, Jonai, it has been clearly mentioned that notice was duly served on the petitioner, but, he remained absent on all the dates fixed by the Tribunal without taking any steps and as such, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against him vide impugned order dated 06.06.2019 and declared him a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

3. It has been submitted that though the petitioner received notice from the Tribunal, at the same time, other family members of the petitioner also received notice from the NRC authorities regarding registration and the petitioner being an illiterate person bonafide believed that the notice was issued in connection with NRC hearing and accordingly, he appeared before the NRC authorities and not before the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he, otherwise, has sufficient documents to prove that he is Indian and not a foreigner and in this regard has drawn attention of this Court to certain documents in support of his claim that the petitioner is not a foreigner but an Indian.

The documents are as follows:

(i) NRC document of 1951 in which the name of his father appeared in serial no.9.

(ii) Voters Lists of 1966, 1970, 1979 and 1985 where the name of the petitioner’s grandparents and parents appeared.

(iii) Voters list of 2000 has also been relied upon to prove linkage with his father Md.

Abu Bkkar Ali.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he can prove that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the merit of the case, 2 (two) brothers of the petitioner have been declared as Indians by the Foreigner Tribunal. They are Md. Moneer @ Moner Ali, Son of Md. Abu Bkkar Ali, Village-Kabu Chapori, P.S. –Jonai, Dist.- Dhemaji who had been declared an Indian by the same Tribunal in F.T. Case no.51/2009 vide order dated 07.01.2014 and Md. Badir Ali, Son of Md. Abu Bakar, Village- Kabu Chapori, P.S. –Jonai, Dist.- Dhemaji who had also been declared an Indian by the Foreigners Tribunal, Dhemaji in Case no.F.T./DMJ-3121/2009 vide order dated 13.06.2014 and as such, it has been submitted that the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid opinions rendered by the same Tribunal, cannot be a foreigner.

6. We have perused the LCR and the documents annexed to this petition.

7. Citizenship is one of the most important rights of a person in today’s world. It is the key to enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by law of the land. It is through citizenship that a person can enjoy and enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights conferred by the Constitution and other statutes, without which a person cannot lead a meaningful life with dignity. A person stripped of citizenship could be rendered a stateless person, if any other country refuses to accept him or her as its citizen. Such is the overarching significance and importance of citizenship to a person. Therefore, any such proceeding which the potential of depriving citizenship ought to be accordingly, examined from that perspective also. In a normal proceeding before a court of law, in spite of any adverse