Point of Law: Rule 2(1) of Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 makes it discernible that Central Government may by order, refer question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within meaning of Foreigners Act 1946 to a Tribunal constituted for purpose.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. AMS Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Mozumdar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. G Sarma, learned Special Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for the Home Department, Government of Assam as well as the Superintendent of Police (B) Cachar, Ms. L Devi, learned CGC for the respondents in the Union of India, as well as for the authorities under the NRC, Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the authorities under the Election Commission of India and Ms. U Das, learned Government Advocate for the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar.

2. The petitioner Rukia Begum Barbhuiya @ Rukia Begum was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal 4th Cachar Silchar resulting in the registration of F. 4th/D/415/2015. The Tribunal passed an order dated 25.01.2019 which is extracted as below:

“O.P. is absent without any step. S.P.(B) Cachar referred the case for opinion whether OP is Indian or Foreigner. In the reference L.V.O. stated that OP produced valid document for which she has to be beyond doubt. The reference itself and as per verdict of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 7104/2015 stated that if tribunal prima facie arrives at a satisfaction that reference made to it is faculty and contrary to the materials on record, the tribunal should send back the reference to the referral authority with a disagreement note pointing out that the error or fault in the reference. Once reference is returned back to the referral authority, it would be the duty of the referral authority to make a fresh reference to the tribunal after removing the defect or fault as pointed out by the tribunal. Hence, this reference is returned back to the S.P.(B), Cachar to make a fresh reference after removing the defect or faults. With this observation instant case is disposed of.”

3. A reading of the order dated 25.01.2019 goes to show that the Tribunal by following the judgment of this Court rendered in Falani Bibi Vs. Union of India & 6 Others dated 18.08.2017 passed in WP(C)No.7104/2015 had arrived at its conclusion that the reference itself is faulty and contrary to the materials on record and therefore it be sent back to the referral authority with a disagreement note pointing out the error or fault in the reference. Although the law as understood by the Tribunal as laid down in Falani Bibi (supra) had been quoted and also stated that if the reference is erroneous or faulty it has to be returned back to the referral authority with a disagreement note pointing out the error or fault, but the order dated 25.01.2019 does not discern any disagreement note being put up by the Tribunal pointing out as to what was the fault or defect. We have to understand that the laws that may be laid down in any judgments are to be followed only by following the purports of the judgment itself and not merely quote a judgment and in the guise of following the judgment do an act as may be enabled in such judgment. A reading of the order dated 25.01.2019 does not reveal that the Tribunal had done the needful of putting up a disagreement note, pointing out the error or fault in the reference and merely because in Falani Bibi (supra), a provision has been made for referring back a judgment to the referral authority, in the instant case also, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer it back to the referring authority.

4. In the aforesaid process, a purported corrected reference had been made against the petitioner Rukia Begum Barbhuiya @ Rukia Begum and accordingly an order dated 12.03.2020 was passed in Case No.F 4th/D/415/2015. Upon the purported corrected reference being made to the Tribunal and the petitioner upon receiving notice, appeared before the Tribunal and made an application that she may be allowed to file an additional written statement. The Tribunal by the order dated 30.08.2018 rejected such prayer of the petitioner for filing an additional written statement. In the circumstance, the petitioner filed a