The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. The Court found the petitioner failed to prove her lineage or citizenship due to contradictions in voter lists and unverified marriage certificates.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order allowing bail vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010208952016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 7078/2016
HAMIDA BIBI
W/O- SABIJUL HOQUE, D/O- HAYDAR ALI, VILL.- DARCHAUKA, PART- I, HOUSE NO. 118 DARCHOWA PART - I, P.S.- GAURIPUR, DIST. - DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF HOME, NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM.
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P C DEY
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER
Date : 06-06-2018
(UJJAL BHUYAN, J)
This case was heard on 09.05.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of order.
6 . Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record, including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal.
Page No.# 3/7
(Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant as defined under the said Act i.e., a foreigner who had unauthorisedly entered into India after 25.03.1971.
11 . Petitioner filed her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit on 13.11.2015 stating therein more or less the same thing as narrated in the written statement.
12 . Certain questions were also put to the petitioner by the Tribunal.
Page No.# 4/7
13 . Proceeding to the exhibits, we find that Ext. B is a certified copy extract of the voters list of 1966 in respect of Gauripur Constituency where the sole voter was Baccha Sk. who was 32 years of age at that stage.
15 . A comparison between Exts. B and C would disclose that Delo Bibi whom the petitioner claimed to be her grandmother was conspicuous by her absence in both the exhibits.
16 . Ext. D is a certified copy extract of the voters list of 1985 in respect of Gauripur Constituency where the two voters were Baccha Sk and Delo Bibi. Baccha Sk was 40 years of age and Delo Bibi 35 years.
17 . There is another Ext. D which is a voters list of 1985 in respect of Gauripur Constituency. Here the two voters were Hayder Bibi, who was marked as a female voter, aged 35 years; and Fote Bibi, aged 22 years. Even if we ignore the misdescription in the name of the first voter i.e. Hayder Bibi instead Hayder Ali and shown as a female voter, what is noticeable is that according to the petitioner, Hayder Ali and Fote Bibi were her parents.
18 . We have already noticed that according to the petitioner, Baccha Sk and Delo Bibi were her grandparents. A comparison between both Ext. Ds as alluded to hereinabove makes it clear that age difference between Baccha Sk and Hayder was just 5 years i.e. 40 and 35 years respectively; on the other hand there was no age difference between Delo Bibi and Baccha Sk, both being 35 years of age. In other words, Baccha Sk gave birth to Hayder when he was 5 years old and there is no age difference between Delo Bibi (mother) and Hayder (son), both being 35 years of age. Nothing more can be so absurd as such a narrative.
Page No.# 5/7
19 . Ext. D1 is a revenue receipt in the name of Nedab Sk.
20 . Ext. F is a Kabilnama dated 04.12.1992 certifying that Sabijul Hoque, son of Lt Moijuddin Sk, had married Musstt. Hamida Bibi, daughter of Hayder Ali, on 04.12.1992. This document was not proved in accordance with law. The Kabilnama was issued by a private society, namely, North-East India Emarat-e-Shariat and Nadawatutamir. Therefore, being a private document, it was required to be proved on the basis of the contemporaneous record and through the testimony of the lawful custodian of the record wherefrom the said kabilnama was issued. But that was not done. Not only that, even Sabijul Hoque, the bridegroom as per the said kabilnama and the witnesses did not depose before the Tribunal to prove the said certificate as well as the contents thereof.
Page No.# 6/7
verified. Therefore Ext. G being not proved and not being subjected to such verification, no reliance can be placed on the said document.
25 . From Ext. H, it is seen that Haydar Ali was 48 years of age on 01.10.2013 which could mean that Haydar Ali was born sometime in the year 1965. If he was born in 1965, he could not have become a voter in 1985 (Ext. D) when he would have been only 20 years of age. That apart, if Haydar Ali was 48 years of age in 2013, it would mean that he would have been 50 years of age in 2015. In 2015, Hamida Bibi, that is, the petitioner disclosed her age as 38 years. If that is the position, the age difference between the Haydar Ali and Hamida Bibi was just 12 years and we do not know the age of the mother i.e. Fote Bibi to be sure.
27 . In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is
Page No.# 7/7
accordingly dismissed.
29 . Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (B) for doing the needful.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove she was not a foreigner.
Whether the evidence on record establishes the petitioner's lineage to persons listed prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971.
Whether the inconsistencies in the voter lists and marriage certificates justify rejection of the petitioner's claims of Indian citizenship.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶8
Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 · Who else cites this
Rupjan Begum Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶23
Rupjan Begum Vs Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Hamida Bibi
Union of India
State of Assam
Superintendent of Police, Dhubri
Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri
Ujjal Bhuyan
Nelson Sailo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
