Disposed

Abdul Kalam and 4 Ors. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 May 2019WP(C)/2938/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing a writ petition by directing petitioners declared foreigners by a Tribunal to register as foreign nationals within 30 days. Court warned of deportation if they fail to comply and disqualification from voting for 10 years post-registration.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to register with FRRO, Nagaon within 30 days on pain of deportation; voting barred for 10 years after registration.

Abdul Kalam and 4 Ors. Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010096962019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2938/2019

¶5

1:ABDUL KALAM AND 4 ORS.

¶6

S/O UMED ALI, R/O VILL. GOROIMARI NIGAM, P.O.-LAHARIGHAT, DIST.MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

2: ATABUR RAHMAN S/O ABDUL KALAM R/O VILL. GOROIMARI NIGAM P.O.-LAHARIGHAT DIST.-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶8

3: HABIBUR RAHMAN @ HAIDAR RAHMAN S/O ABDUL KALAM R/O VILL. GOROIMARI NIGAM P.O.-LAHARIGHAT DIST.-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶9

4: RAHIMA KHATUN D/O ABDUL KALAM R/O VILL. GOROIMARI NIGAM P.O.-LAHARIGHAT DIST.-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶10

5: MUSTT. AYESHA KHATUN @ MUSTT. AISA KHATUN W/O ABDUL KALAM R/O VILL. GOROIMARI NIGAM P.O.-LAHARIGHAT DIST.-MORIGAON ASSA

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF INDIA DEPTT. OF (HOME AFFAIRS) NEW DELHI, INDIA 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF HOME DIPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) MORIGAON DIST.-MORIGAON ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST.-MORIGAON ASSAM 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO BE REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI INDIA

¶14

6:THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN TO BE REP. BY THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR ASYUT PIAZA BHANGAGARH KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶17

Page No.# 3/5

¶18

:: BEFORE ::

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

17.05.2019

¶22

(Manojit Bhuyan, J)

¶23

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel representing respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appears for respondent no.5 whereas Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel appears for respondent no.6. There is none to represent respondent no.1.

¶24

The Foreigners’ Tribunal (2^nd ), Morigaon passed order dated 11.08.2016 in Case No. F.T. 230/12, declaring the petitioners to be foreigners, having illegally entered into India (Assam) from village Murad Nagar under Komilla district of Bangladesh in between 1966 to 1971.

¶25

A reference case was made against the five petitioners namely, (1) Abdul Kalam, (2) Md. Atabur Rahman, (3) Habibur Rahman @ Haidar Rahman, (4) Musstt. Rahima Khatun and (5) Musstt. Ayesha Khatun @ Musstt. Aisa Khatun who were also the proceedees in respect of Case No. F.T.230/12 before the Foreigners’ Tribunal (2^nd ), Morigaon. On receipt of reference case, the Tribunal issued notices to the petitioners to show that they were not foreigners but Indian nationals. In support of their claim, petitioners filed written statements, documents, adduced evidence and examined defence witnesses denying the allegations that they were foreign nationals. After careful considerations of all the materials the Tribunal came to the finding that petitioners utterly failed to discharge the burden as required under the law and declared them to be foreigners of 1966 to 1971 stream.

¶26

Mr. Bhuyan submits that petitioners were not aware of the order of the Tribunal and/or that they were required to register their names before the concerned Registering

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

Authority as they were not educated. Moreover, in the order dated 11.08.2016 no direction was made to register the names of the petitioners before the concerned authority and that they were unaware of the consequences of not registering their names before the said authority. Under the circumstances, prayer is made that for the ends of justice a direction be made to the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon for registering their names.

¶29

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also take note of the attending facts and circumstances. We also take note of an order passed in a writ petition involving the issue on belated approach for registration. Notice is had to the order dated 11.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 2295/2014 (Pronoti Bala Sarkar and others vs. State of Assam and Others). In the said case, this Court after noticing the relevant provisions under the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended, and that under the Citizenship Rules, 2009, together with the Full Bench decision in State of Assam and Others vs. Moslem Mondal and Others, reported in (2013) 1 GLT 809, held that it would meet the ends of justice to permit the petitioners therein to get themselves registered as foreigners belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream, even at the belated stage.

¶30

Having regard to the facts of the case and considering the order passed in Pronoti Bala Sarkar (supra), we make a direction to the petitioners to approach the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Nagaon within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. Upon such approach being made within the period indicated above, the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Nagaon shall take appropriate steps for registration of the names of the petitioners in accordance with law. Legal consequences shall accordingly follow. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not approach the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Nagaon within the period above, they shall be liable to be apprehended and deported from India. It is also made clear that until expiry of 10 (ten) years next from the date of registration of their names before the aforesaid Registering Authority, the petitioners shall not be allowed to cast vote and/or be entitled to have their names included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency.

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Kalam and 4 Ors. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kalam and 4 Ors. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pabitra Debnath Nath Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musstt. Jahura Khatoon @ Ms Jahura Khatun Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Md. Rahim Uddin Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Anowara Bewa Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anowara Khatun Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Basiron Khatun @ Basiron Nessa Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.