[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Halima Begum @ Mustt. Halima Begum vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010018932026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1077/2026
HALIMA BEGUM @ MUSTT. HALIMA BEGUM
D/O MD HASEN ALI, W/O MD KASEM ALI, R/O VILLAGE 2 PADUMONI
GAON, P.S.- SARUPATHAR, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785601
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
110001
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
4:THE ASSAM STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NRC
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOLAGHAT
Page No.# 2/9
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 78562
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MR. F A AHMED,MS. K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 12-03-2026
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.
Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal and NRC, Ms. S.
Katakey, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. S.
Kakati, learned CGC, and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 03.08.2017,
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Jorhat, Assam in Case No.
FTG/ 54/ 11 corresponding to Police Enquiry F.T. No.51/06 & (IMDT No.578/04),
thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Halima Begum @ Mustt. Halima Begum
to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
3. After appearance, the petitioner had filed her written statement
and thereafter, filed her written evidence-in-chief as DW-1.
4. In his evidence-in-chief, the petitioner had stated that he was
born and brought up at Vill. Padumoni Gaon, P.O. Sarupathar, P.S. Sarupathar,
Page No.# 3/9
Dist- Golaghat, Assam. The name of the father of the petitioner was Md. Hasen
Ali and the name of the grandfather was Mofizuddin. Her grandfather was born
at Moirabari under Nagaon district. The name of her great grandfather was
Motiullah Sheikh. Her grandfather had four brothers, namely, Samijuddin,
Kamaruddin, Samaruddin and Samsuddin. Her father had four brothers and four
sisters, namely, Abdul Motleb, Hasen Ali, Abdul Salam, Abdul Sattar, Ayesha
Begum, Ambia Begum, Amina Begum and Jamila Begum.
5. In the written statement, it is stated that the petitioner's
grandfather namely, Mofizuddin had electoral right and was enrolled in the Voter
list of 1966. The petitioner's husband namely, Kasem Ali and father-in-law Abdul
Ali are enrolled in the Voter list of the year 1997 at village Padumoni Gaon, P.S.
Sarupathar, Dist. Golaghat, Assam. In support of her statements, DW-1 had
exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) certified copy of voters list of 1966
(Ext.1); (ii) certified copy of voters list of 1971 (Ext.2); (iii) certified copy of
voters list of 2005 (Ext.3); (iv) certified copy of electoral roll for the year 1997
(Ext. 4); (v) certified copy of NRC (Ext. 5); (vi) residential certificate in the
name of the proceedee issued by the Govt. Gaon Burha (Ext. 6). The petitioner
has also produced 2(two) nos. of witnesses including herself as OPW1 and
OPW2.
6. The petitioner has stated in her written statement as well as in
her written evidence that the name of her grandfather i.e. Mofizuddin is
recorded in the electoral roll for the year 1971 but she did not state that her
grandfather's name was wrongly inserted in the electoral roll for the year 1971
as Mafakuddin Sekh instead of Mofizuddin.
7. The petitioner has also examined Jubeda Begum, her projected
mother, as OPW2. She has also reiterated the statements made by the
Page No.# 4/9
petitioner as DW-1.
8. Though both the witnesses have deposed that the original
residence of Mafijuddin was at Bheleuguri gaon under Moirabari P.S. of Nagaon
district, but the petitioner neither in her written statement nor written evidence
stated that her grandfather was originally from Bheleuguri and later shifted from
Bheleuguri of Nagaon district to Phota Simolu of Sonitpur District.
9. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the pleadings and
evidence, held that the petitioner nowhere stated that the name of her
grandfather is wrongly written as Mahijuddin Ali instead of Mofijuddin. Moreover,
though both the witnesses deposed that the father of the petitioner is Hasen Ali,
who is the son of Mofijuddin but no document is produced by the petitioner to
prove that her father, Hasen Ali is the son of Mafijuddin. Thus only oral evidence
of the witnesses are not sufficient to prove that Hasen Ali is the son of
Mofijuddin. Hence, the petitioner had failed to establish her linkage with said
Mafijuddin, son of Motiullah who was the citizen of India. Accordingly, it was
held that the mere filing of some documents and picking up some names from
such documents so as to establish relationship is not enough. Accordingly, it was
held that the documents filed by the petitioner cannot be taken as legal
evidence to confer Indian citizenship. Hence, it was further held that the
petitioner had failed to discharge her onus of proving under Section 9 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 that she is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Thus, it
was held that the petitioner was a foreigner who has illegally entered into India
(Assam) after 25.03.1971.
10. Accordingly, the Court does not find any reason to differ with the
opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal.
Page No.# 5/9
11. On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner has filed this writ
petition on 02.02.2026 to assail the opinion dated 03.08.2017, i.e. after 8 years,
5 month, 30 days (i.e. 3105 days). The said delay is explained merely by stating
that the petitioner is poor and unable to manage the cost and expenditure of
approaching this Court. Such a vague statement cannot be accepted as nothing
prevented the petitioner from availing free legal aid, which she did not. Hence,
by virtue of the long delay of over eight years, is deemed to have accepted the
opinion without any demur, with full knowledge of the fact that she has been
declared to be a foreigner, who has illegally entered into India (Assam) from the
specified territory. Thus, the writ petition is also not maintainable in view of the
delay and laches.
12. The Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 46 of the case of Urban
Improvement Trust (supra), has reiterated the law that undue delay in approaching the
Court can be a ground for refusing relief and it has been expressed that that only in
exceptional cases, delay can be condoned. The said paragraph 46 is quoted below:-
"46. As regards the appellant's challenge to the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing of the
writ petitions by the respondents, we are of the view that the same needs to be considered in
the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is true that the courts have consistently
held that undue delay in approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the
courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the impugned action is
patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the delay must be condoned."
13. In respect of the well settled legal preposition that delay and laches are
fatal to a belated challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, it may be relevant
to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Jonali Das v. Union of India, 2018 (5)
GLT 492: (2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1186. Paragraph 9 thereof is as follows:-
"9. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.4971/2018, disposed
of on 01.08.2018], this Court had observed as follows:-
"It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has
Page No.# 6/9
been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention
of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that
unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of
the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and
should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person
who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable
opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person
does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk
and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a
fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a
farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of
identification and deportation of foreigners."
14. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by
LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme(SC)
1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court,
when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals,
under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the
petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the
inordinate delay in assailing the opinion.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the
petitioner had all the relevant documents, but due to wrong legal advice, she
could not exhibit several documents and thus, submitted that for ends of justice
the matter be remanded back to enable the petitioner to prove additional
documents. The said submission cannot be accepted as one cannot be relegated
back to the Foreigners Tribunal, merely to enable her to fill-up the lacuna. It is
not the case of the petitioner that she had made a prayer before the learned
Tribunal to prove further documents, which was refused. In the said context, it
would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Ajbahar
Page No.# 7/9
Ali v. Union of India, (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763 , wherein it has been held to
the effect that the plea of compliance of the principles of natural justice cannot
be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the
very object of identification and deportation of foreigners. Similar opinion has
also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union
of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813.
16. In the case of Rashminara Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2017
(4) GLT 346, this Court has held that material facts pleaded would have to be
proved by adducing cogent and admissible evidence. Similarly, in the case of
Ayesha Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 GLR 820 , this Court had
reiterated that failure to disclose material facts in the written statement would
lead to an adverse presumption. Under the scheme of the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964, the petitioner is required to file his/her written statement and
produce all documents. The petitioner, for more than 8 years, 5 months, had
made no complaint against her engaged counsel for his/her incompetence or for
giving him incorrect legal advice or for counsel's omission to exhibit any
document that were provided to her learned counsel. Thus, the allegations
made against the learned counsel of the petitioner, who was engaged in the
proceedings before the learned Tribunal are an after-thought, craftily made
behind the back of the said learned counsel just to make out a case. It is not
the case of the petitioner that she had signed and filed her written statement
without being informed of its contents or that he was given false information
about its contents. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to hold that no case has
been made out by the petitioner for remanding the matter back to the learned
Tribunal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take a plea before this Court
that due to the ill-advice of her learned counsel, complete disclosures were not
Page No.# 8/9
made in the written statement and all documents could not be exhibited. If such
a prayer is accepted, then the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals
would become a farcical exercise and every time the opinion goes against the
proceedee, the High Court would have to remand the matter back to enable the
proceedee to amend the written statement and then prove additional
documents, which would be an endless exercise. Therefore, the plea that the
petitioner did not get proper legal advice, which is alleged in this writ petition,
has been discussed, only to be rejected.
17. While exercising certiorari jurisdiction, the Court would refrain
from undertaking an exercise to find out if the petitioner had left out or omitted
to make proper pleadings or to exhibit certain documents unless it can be
demonstrated that the petitioner had made an application before the learned
Tribunal and the same was incorrectly rejected. This Court has limited
jurisdiction to examine if the order passed by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by
perversity as this Court is not exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction while
examining the opinion passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal.
18. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails
on merit, as well as on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in assailing
the impugned opinion, and on the ground that the matter cannot be remanded
on the reasons assigned by the petitioner in this writ petition. The opinion is not
found to be vitiated for any reason whatsoever and cannot be held to be
incorrect or perverse.
19. Thus, no interference is called for in respect of the opinion dated
03.08.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Jorhat, Assam in
Case No. FTG/ 54/ 11 corresponding to Police Enquiry F.T. No.51/06 & (IMDT
No.578/04). The consequences of the said opinion shall follow. The writ petition
Page No.# 9/9
is hereby dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the
respondents.
20. There shall be no order as to cost.
21. The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and
NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and
Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of
the record of the learned Tribunal for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
