Disposed

Rekha Das @ Rekha Rani Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Nov 2019WP(C)/4796/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed a petitioner, declared a foreigner in the 1966-1971 stream, to approach the FRRO within 30 days for registration. The court ordered her release from custody upon registration but disqualified her from voting for ten years following registration.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to register name with FRRO within 30 days; directed Superintendent of Police to produce her; ordered her release after registration; disqualified from voting for 10 years.

Rekha Das @ Rekha Rani Das Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010144282019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4796/2019

¶5

1:REKHA DAS @ REKHA RANI DAS W/O MUKUNDA DAS, D/O LT. ABONI DAS, R/O DIGBOI MUKH, P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR

¶10

GUWAHATI-06

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN.) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (B) DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶13

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶14

6:ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

NEW DELHI-1

¶17

7:COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GHY-

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K MIRA

¶19

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

¶20

:: BEFORE ::

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

O R D E R

08.11.2019

(Manojit Bhuyan, J)

Heard Mr. K. Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel representing respondent no.1. Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel appears for respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 whereas Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appears for respondent no.6. Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel appears for respondent no.7.

¶26

The Foreigners’ Tribunal, Dibrugarh passed order dated 24.01.2002 in Case No. F.T. 378/2001, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner within 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream with direction to register her name before the F.R.O’s office.

¶27

On perusal of the case records in original it is seen from the Report of the Sub-Inspector (Border), Duliajan Police Station that the petitioner illegally entered into India during 1966-1971 from Bangladesh and started living at village Digtoimukh, P.S. Duliajan in the district- Dibrugarh, Assam. It is also found from the Interrogation Report that the petitioner entered into India (Assam) in between 1966-1971. Hence, the case was forwarded to Tribunal for trial.

¶28

On receipt of reference case, the Tribunal issued notice whereupon the petitioner appeared

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

and contested the case denying the allegation that she is a foreigner and stated that she was born at village Bamunbari, Kalibari, P.S. Duliajan. In support of her claim as DW-1 the petitioner produced photocopies of voter list and Refugee Registration Certificate which were discarded on the ground that petitioner having been given sufficient opportunity failed to produce the original of the aforesaid documents. After careful consideration of all the materials the Tribunal came to the finding that proceedee utterly failed to discharge the burden as required of her under the law and declared her to be a foreigner within 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream with direction to register her name before the F.R.O’s office.

¶31

Mr. Mira submits that although in the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2002 there was a direction for registering the name before the Foreigners Registration Office, the petitioner was not aware of the requirement and/or the consequences in case of not registering her name before the Registering Authority. Prayer is made that she be granted an opportunity to register her name before the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh for the ends of justice.

¶32

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.

¶33

Having regard to the submission of Mr. Mira and in view of the order passed in Pronoti Bala Sarkar (supra) and Laba Das (supra), we make a direction to the petitioner to approach the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Dibrugarh within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. To facilitate the process and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2019 and is presently lodged at the Dibrugarh Central Jail, we make a direction to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh to make necessary arrangement to produce the petitioner before the FRRO, Dibrugarh within the aforesaid period of 30 (thirty) days, enabling the petitioner to take the required steps for registering her name. In turn, the FRRO, Dibrugarh shall pass appropriate order, after making necessary verification, towards registration of the name of the petitioner in accordance with law. Legal consequences shall accordingly follow, in that, subsequent to

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

registration of the name of the petitioner, she shall be released from custody. It is also made clear that until expiry of 10 (ten) years next from the date of registration of her name before the aforesaid Registering Authority, the petitioner shall not be allowed to cast vote and/or be entitled to have her name included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency.

¶36

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

¶37

Office to send back the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶38

A copy of this order be made available to the Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India i.e. respondent no.6.

¶39

JUDGE JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Rekha Das @ Rekha Rani Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Das @ Rekha Rani Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Sankar Kundu Vs the Union of India and 5ORS

Musstt. Akiran Nessa Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musstt. Mayarun Nessa Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Jaynuddin Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Smti Sandhya Rani Ghosh and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Banesa Khatoon (Begum) Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.