GAHC010029642019 2025:GAU-AS:16909

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1181/2019

SARBHANU BEGUM

W/O- LATE AMJAD ALI, VILL- BARKUR, P.S- DALGAON, DIST- DARRANG,

ASSAM, PIN- 784116

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

REP. BY THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

HOME DEPTT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- 781006

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DARRANG

DIST- DARRANG

ASSAM

PIN- 784125

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B)

DARRANG

ASSAM

PIN- 784125

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

NEW DELHI- 110001

6:THE STATE COORDINATOR

NRC

ASSAM

PIN- 78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A MATIN,MR. J M SULAIMAN,MRS H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

ORDER

05.12.2025 Date :

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mrs. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr.

H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 30.08.2018, th passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5 ), Darrang, Mangaldai in Case No. FT(V) 1169/2016, arising out of SP Enquiry No. NIL, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. Pursuant to order dated 27.02.2019, the records of the Tribunal is received.

4. The learned Tribunal referred to Ext. Nos. 3 to 6 and observed that the petitioner had not examined the Gaonburah of Barkur village, who had issued the Residential Certificate (Ext. 3) or the Gaon Panchayat of Shyampur who had issued the Linkage Certificate (Ext. 4). Though the petitioner had exhibited the voter ID card of her projected brother (Ext. 5), but she did not produce her brother for cross-examination. The learned Tribunal, on examining the contents of the NRC of 1971 (Ext. 1) and the voter list of 1970, observed that the name of Sukurjan, wife of Mia Hussain, was recorded and further observed that the petitioner had projected Mia Hussain and Sukurjan as her father and mother, but in her evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that the name of her mother is Sukuri Bewa, however, in paragraph-10 of her written statement, the name of her mother is stated to be Sukrujan. Therefore, as the petitioner did not clarify as to what was the actual and correct name of her mother, the evidence of the petitioner, insofar as the name of her mother is concerned, was discarded.

5. The petitioner had relied on the voter list of 1997. However, in the said voter list, the name of Abdul appeared as the husband of the petitioner. However, in her evidence, the petitioner had stated that the name of her husband is Late Amjad Ali, son of Sabed. Therefore, if that was the name of her husband, then who was Abdul, and accordingly, the said document was also discarded.

6. Accordingly, as the statements made in the evidence were not found to corroborate with the exhibits, it was held that the petitioner had failed to establish a linkage with the Indian parent relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be an illegal migrant of the stream of post 25.03.1971.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a strong argument to project that merely because of certain discrepancies in the name of the petitioner and her projected husband and her mother, the evidence of the petitioner was discarded and she was held to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. It is submitted that there are a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that minor discrepancies in the name of the persons i