Gauhati High Court
Ambia Khatun @ Umbia Khatoon vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 29 August, 2025
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010192532020
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/40/2021
AMBIA KHATUN @ UMBIA KHATOON
W/O- JAMALUDDIN @ JALALUDDIN, D/O- TAHER ALI, R/O- VILL-
SARALPARA, P.O. CHAYGAON, P.S. SUALKUCHI (RPS),
DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, 110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (R)
DIST.- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN- 781031
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
KAMRUP (R)
DIST.- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN- 781031
5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI- 01
Page No.# 2/8
6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZENS (N.R.C.)
BHANGAGARH
GHY-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM,
MR A REHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.
Date of hearing : 05.08.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 29-08-2025
(Rajesh Mazumdar, J)
Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing
Counsel, FT; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned SC, ECI; Mr. P. Sarma,
learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Central Government Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. By preferring this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the opinion
rendered on 07.06.2019 by the learned Member of the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Rural) No. 1 in
GFTR Case No. 1546/2016, declaring the petitioner herein, namely, Ambia Khatun, as a foreigner
or illegal immigrant of the post 25th day of March, 1971 stream, has beenchallenged.
3. The brief facts leading to the institution of this petition is that on consideration of the verification
report submitted by the Local Verification Officer in respect of the petitioner herein, the Electoral
Registration Officer made a reference to the Superintendent of Police (B) Kamrup, requesting him to
take necessary action under the Illegal Migrants (Determination By Tribunals) Act 1983 and the
Foreigners Act 1946 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Superintendent of Police(B), Kamrup
accordingly,registered Case No. 690/1998, and entrusted a Sub Inspector to enquire into the matter. On
receipt of the enquiry report, it was forwarded to the IM(D)T, Guwahati (Camp at Nalbari) for
Page No.# 3/8
determination of nationality of the petitioner herein.
4. Accordingly, IM(D)T, Nalbari, registered Case No. 881/1998. As the petitioner could not be
traced out for service of notice, the case was filed without determination vide order dated
24.07.2003.Subsequently the Superintendent of Police referred the case to the Foreigners Tribunal,
Kamrup (Rural), Guwahati. The case records were returned back to the referring authority without
registering a case by an order dated 09.04.2013, by referring to the order dated 24.07.2003 passed
earlier by the IM(D)T, Nalbari. The referring authority, thereafter, forwarded the case records to the
Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Boko, seeking an opinion with regard to the status of the petitioner.
Accordingly BFT Case No. 3323/2016 was registered. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the
learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (R) No. 1, where it was renumbered as GFT(R) Case No
1546/2017, (Ref.Police Case No. 690/1998).
5. Notice of the case was issued to the petitioner on 15.06.2018 and she entered appearance on
24.01.2019. On 13.02.2019, the learned Tribunal, after taking note of the consistent absence of the
petitioner, rejected the application filed by the petitioner for further time to file written statement and
the matter was fixed on 15.02.2019, for necessary orders. On 15.2.2019, the petitioner had filed
herwritten statement. The evidence-on-affidavit by three witnesses were filed on 22.02.2019, and the
said witnesses were cross examined on 06.03.2019. Written arguments on behalf of the petitioner was
filed on 16.03.2019 and the learned AGP was also heard. The opinion that the petitioner was a foreigner
of post 25.03.1971 stream, was rendered on 07.06.2019, thus finalizing the reference initiated in the
year 1998.
6. The petitioner approached this Court, assailing the opinion on 21.12.2020. Before issuing notice,
the records were initially requisitioned by order dated 18.01.2021. On receipt of records, notices were
issued on 13.09.2021 and simultaneously, bail was granted. Arguments were heard on 05.08.2025.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has suffered serious
injustice when her projected case that she was a citizen of India by birth had been rejected by the
learned Tribunal without proper appreciation of the evidence led by the petitioner. He had also
submitted that the petitioner had adduced her evidence as DW-1, and her projected father was
examined as DW-2 and the Gaonburah of village Nayapara was examined as DW-3 and the witnesses
had exhibited relevant documents in support of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed error when relevant exhibits were disbelieved only
Page No.# 4/8
due to minor discrepancies in name and age of her projected family despite the fact that the petitioner
had given clear explanations for the same. He submits that the evidence of the petitioner having been
supported by other witnesses, the learned Tribunal ought not have disbelieved the exhibits and ought to
not have declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of the post 25.03.1971 stream. He has prayed the writ
petition be allowed by setting aside the opinion of the learned Tribunal.
8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, has vehemently opposed
the writ petition and supported the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal. She has referred to the
documents annexed to the writ petition to emphasize that the petitioner had failed to establish her
linkage between her projected grandfather and her projected father. She has further submitted that even
if the documents relied upon by the petitioner were to be taken on their face value, the opinion rendered
by the learned Tribunal would rather be fortified. She has referred to the different documents to
emphasize that the petitioner was under a legal obligation to have disclosed all relevant material
including the details of her ancestors, her birth, her residence and change thereof, if any, and also
explain discrepancies, if any, in the documents relied upon. It has been submitted that the petitioner had
failed to discharge her obligations to prove her nationality and therefore, the writ deserves to be
dismissed. She has also submitted that since no procedural lapses or denial of justice had either been
pleaded or demonstrated, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
9. The following judgments were relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents:
i.Basiron Bibi vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2018(1)GLT 372.
ii. Saru Sheikh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2017(4) GLR 295.
iii.Aziz Miya vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023(4) GLT 246.
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we have also carefully perused
the records.
11. In the written statement filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, she claimed to have
been born and brought up in village Nowapara, P.S. Chaygaon, in the district of Kamrup Assam. She
claimed that she was known both as Ambia Khatun and Umbia Khatun. She claimed to have shifted her
place of residence to Saralpara village under P.S. Sualkuchi (RPS) after her marriage to one Jamal
Uddin. She claimed that her projected grandfather, Abdul Subahan was born in village Champupara
Pathar, under Chhaygaon P.S. in the District of Kamrup, Assam and that his name, alongwith the names
Page No.# 5/8
of the brothers of her projected father, appeared in the relevant voters list for the year 1966 with minor
variation in the names. She further claimed that the names of the brother of her projected father and
their wives also appeared in the voters list of 1970, without her projected grandfather since he had
expired in 1967.
She further claimed that her father was born in the same village as her projected grandfather, but
on the death of her projected grandfather in the year 1967, her projected father had shifted in 1968
alongwith his mother to village Nowaparaunder Chhaygaon Rural Police Station in the same district.
She claimed that the names of her projected parents and grandmother did not appear in the voters list
for the year 1970 for the village Nowapara due to technical mistake. She further claims that after her
projected grandmother expired in 1975, the names of her parents and paternal uncle appeared in the
voters list for the year 1977.
In her written statement, the petitioner has stated about the shifting of her parents to village
Charaimari and therefrom, to village Maj Gumi, claiming that the relevant voters lists included the
names of her parents and other family members. She claimed that her mother suffered demise in the
year 2016. She also claims that her name appeared for the first time in a voter list in the year 1997 after
her marriage, but, she was shown as a "doubtful" voter. She has mentioned the names of the projected
brothers and sisters of her projected father and also herprojected brothers and sisters. The petitioner has
also referred to the variance in the age of her projected father and herself in the different voters lists.
12. The evidence of the petitioner as DW 1 and the evidence of her projected father (DW-2) were on
similar lines, supporting her written statement. The In-charge Government Gaonburah of Nowapara
village deposed as DW-3.
13. The following documents were exhibited by the petitioner, being, (1) certified copy of voters list
of 1966 (Ext. A), certified copy of voters list of 1970 (Ext. B), certified copy of voters list of 1977 (Ext.
C), certified copy of voters list of 1985 (Ext. D), certified copy of voters list of 1997 (Ext. E),
photocopy of voters list of 2005 (Ext. F), certified copy of voters list of 2010 (Ext. G), certified copy of
voters list of 2015 (Ext. H), certified copy of voters list of 2018 (Ext. I), certificate issued by the
Gaonburha of Hohuwapathar, Bhakuamari, Bhogardia, Nayapara, Khetrapara, and No.1 & 2 Balagaon
village (Ext. J), certificate issued by Gaonburha of Barakat village (Ext.K), certificate issued by
Gaonburha of Champupara village (Ext.L), photocopy of voters list of 1997 (Ext. M), photocopy of
voters list of 2005 (Ext. N) photocopy of voters list of 2005 (Ext.O), photocopy of voters list of 2015
Page No.# 6/8
(Ext. P), photocopy of voters list of 2019 (Ext. Q), and affidavit sworn by petitioner (Ext. R).
14. This Court is conscious of the extent of interference that can be made in exercise of powers of
judicial review under provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the
findings/opinion of a quasi-judicial authority. Notwithstanding the same, we have looked into the
materials available on record to satisfy ourselves about the correctness of the opinion rendered by the
learned Tribunal.
15. The background leading to the institution of the present writ petition has already been noticed
hereinbefore.In Rashminara Begum v. Union of India, reported in 2017 (4) GLT 346, this Court has
held that written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee facing a proceeding before
the Foreigners' Tribunal. It was also held that material facts relevant for establishing his citizenship of
India have to be pleaded in the written statement, which are thereafter, required to be proved by
adducing cogent and reliable evidence.
16. The petitioner had claimed that the name of her grandfather appeared in the voter list of the year
1966 as Abdul Chauhan, then aged about 70 years. Moreover, it is seen that the names of neither the
petitioners projected grandmother nor of her projected father appear in the said voter list. Thus, though
the petitioner claims that her projected grandfather had expired in 1967, and thereafter, her projected
grandmother, projected father and projected paternal uncle had shifted to Nowapara, but the relevant
voter list of the year 1970 was not exhibited, rather it was admitted that the names of her projected
grandmother, her projected father and her projected paternal uncle did not appear in any of the voters'
list of that year.
17. The claim that the name of the petitioner's projected father appeared for the first time in the
voters' list of the year 1977, by recording his age as 45 years is not found to be convincing. If the
projected father of the petitioner was 45 years in 1977, then he must be deemed to have been born in
1932 and he would have been about 34 years in the year 1966, when the name of the projected
grandfather of the petitioner had appeared in the voters' list. However, the name of Taher Ali does not
appear in the said list and the proceedee does not give any explanation for such absence.
18. Going by the voters' list of the year 1985,the same was exhibitedby the respondents.
Nonetheless, the age of the voter, whose names are registered as Taher Ali, staying in
Soraimari/Hengrabari village is shown as 46 years. If the projection of the petitioner that both Taher Ali
in the two voters lists are the same person, he had aged only one year when nearly 8 years had passed
Page No.# 7/8
in the meantime. In the voters' list of the year 1997, the age of Taher Ali is stated to be appearing
therein as 55 years, while in the voters' list of the year 2005, it contains the name of Taher Ali, whom
the petitioner projects to be her father, to be aged 50 years in 2005. The projected father of the
petitioner, in his cross-examination, had stated that he was 30 years old in 1977, which takes his birth
year to 1947, which in return, was about 72 years in 2019, when he was adducing evidence stating his
age to be about 63 years.
19. We have also noticed that the petitioner could not establish any linkage between the writ
petitioner and the projected father and her projected grandfather and we have also noticed that the
proceedee has admitted significant differences not only in the age of her projected father but also in her
own age in the different documents exhibited in her own defence.
20. In Saru Sheikh vs. Union of India and others, reported as 2017(4) GLR 295, it has been held
that in a proceeding before the Foreigners' Tribunal, written statement is the basic statement of defence
of a proceedee. Having regard to the mandate of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and Section 9 of the
Foreigners Act, it is incumbent upon a proceedee to disclose all such facts which are specially within
his or her knowledge having a material bearing on his claim to be a citizen of India at the first instance
itself i.e., in the written statement. Such facts are thereafter required to be proved by adducing cogent
and reliable evidence.
In Basiron Bibi vs Union of India, reported in 2018 (1) GLT 372, this court had held that the
voters' lists were adduced as evidence by the petitioner herself to prove her case that she was not a
foreigner but a citizen of India. Petitioner cannot insist that only that portions of the voters' lists which
are in her favour should be accepted and those portions going against her should be over-looked. This
is not how a document put forward as a piece of evidence should be examined. The document has to be
appreciated as a whole.
Even keeping the factor of approximation in mind, such huge differences in respect of age of the
petitioner and also of her projected father cannot, by any stretch, be considered to be a minor
onedeserving to be ignored [Zirfan Nessa Vs. Union of India, 2020 (2) GLR 211].
In Aziz Miya vs Union of India, reported as 2023 (4) GLT 246, it has been held that a mere
claim by a suspected person by referring to a voters' list claiming a person therein to be his father is not
conclusive proof and that by doing so, it cannot be said that the person has discharged the burden to
prove that he is not a foreigner. This is because there is also a further requirement to prove that the
Page No.# 8/8
person who is reflected in the voters' list relied upon, is actually the father of the person who makes the
claim. The claim will have to be substantiated with further material/materials acceptable in law. We do
not find that the petitioner that discharged this part of her obligation.
21. The narrative presented by the petitioner and her projected father before the learned Tribunal and
even before us suffers from multiple material contradictions rendering the same highly improbable.
The net result of the above discussion is that the petitioner has failed to establish her link to an Indian
grand parent or parent relatable to a period prior to 25.3.1971.
22. In such circumstances, we find that the view taken by the learned Tribunal that the evidence
tendered by the petitioner was not trustworthy is reasonable and without fault. There is no error or
infirmity in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. We do not find any reason to interfere in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petitionis accordingly
dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The consequences of the opinion of the learned
Tribunal shall follow.
23. No costs.
24. Registry to send down the TCR forthwith along with a copy of this order to form a part of the
record.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
