Remanded

Musstt. Sajida Khatun @ Musstt Sazeda Khatoon @ Sajida Khatun @ Sajida Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/3950/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that certified copies of voters lists are public documents not requiring original custodian proof. The Tribunal's opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner was vitiated for rejecting this evidence and was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned opinion was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration. The petitioner is directed not to leave Nagaon District without informing police.

Musstt. Sajida Khatun @ Musstt Sazeda Khatoon @ Sajida Khatun @ Sajida Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010111942022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3950/2022

¶5

MUSSTT. SAJIDA KHATUN @ MUSSTT SAZEDA KHATOON @ SAJIDA KHATUN @ SAJIDA BEGUM

¶6

D/O- LATE ABDUL KARIM, W/O- MD. SAFIRUDDIN @ SAFIRUDDIN, R/OVILL.- KHONATUP, P.O. TELIACHAPORI, P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001.

¶11

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON P.O. AND DIST. NAGON ASSAM PIN- 782001.

¶12

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1.

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

6:THE ASSAM STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. S ALOM

¶16

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

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶19

Order

¶20

15-06-2022

¶21

[N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ (Acting)]

¶22

Heard Md. S. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Special Standing Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent no.4; Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent nos.2 & 3, Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent no.5 and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent no.6.

¶23

Considering the nature of the case and after hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the matter can be disposed of at this stage without issuing any formal notice to the respondents.

¶24

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Sajida Khatun @ Musstt. Sazeda Khatoon @ Sajida Khatun @ Sajida Begum, aged about 60 years, daughter of

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

Late Abdul Karim, Wife of Md. Safiruddin @ Safiruddin, resident of village Khonatup, P.O.Teliachapori, P.S.-Rupahihat, Dist.-Nagaon, Assam on being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.3^rd , Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. NFT (No.3) (D)315/2016 (corresponding to D/Case No.42/98), declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

¶27

The petitioner having received notice from the Tribunal appeared before the Tribunal on 11.11.2016 and filed her written statement along with certain documents including certified copies of voters lists of 1965 and 1970 of 87 No. Rupohihat Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC) by showing the name of her projected parents in both the voters lists. However, the Tribunal rejected the said exhibits i.e. Exhibit-2 & 3 by holding that the voters lists of 1965 and 1970 had not been proved by the original custodian with whom the lists lie. Thus, these 2 (two) vital documents i.e. the certified copies of the voters lists of 1965 and 1970, through which the petitioner was claiming linkage to her projected parents, were rejected by the Tribunal on the aforesaid ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the law a certified copy of the voters list being a public document does not require to be proved by examining the original custodian of the voters list i.e. the Election Officer, though, the same is required to be proved in accordance with law by examining the proceedee who relies on the same. In the present case, even if it is assumed that the original custodians of the certified copies of voters lists of 1965 and 1970 are the parents of the petitioner, in that event also, those certified copies being public documents, there was no need for the petitioner to prove the contents of the said certified copies of the voters lists of 1965 & 1970 as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

In view of the a above erroneous approach adopted by the Tribunal in rejecting the said certified copies of the voters lists of 1965 and 1970, we are of the view that the opinion of the Tribunal will stand vitiated on the abovementioned ground only and as such, we deem it inappropriate to consider any other grounds mentioned in the opinion at this stage, as we are of the view that the Tribunal while passing his opinion must consider all the evidences altogether not in isolation. In our view, non-consideration of the said 2 (two) vital documents i.e. certified copies of the voters lists of 1965 and 1970 will render the assessment of other remaining evidences incomplete.

¶30

Accordingly, without going into the other grounds of the petition, we are satisfied that the opinion dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.3^rd , Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No.NFT (No.3)(D)315/2016 (corresponding to D/Case No.42/98) cannot be sustained on the aforesaid grounds mentioned.

¶31

In view of above, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Foreigners

¶32

Tribunal No.3^rd , Nagaon, Assam, for reconsideration and decide the matter afresh on the basis of the evidence on records, especially, by taking into consideration of the aforesaid 2 (two) certified copies of the voters lists of 1965 and 1970 which the petitioner had exhibited and testified before the Tribunal and also re-assess the other evidences in the light of the other two voters lists.

¶33

With the above observation and direction, we allow this application by setting aside the impugned opinion dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.3^rd , Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No.NFT (No.3) (D)315/2016 (corresponding to D/Case No.42/98).

¶34

Since the citizenship of the petitioner has come under cloud, till the culmination of the

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

proceeding before the Foreigner Tribunal No.3^rd , Nagaon, the petitioner shall not be arrested or detained in connection with F.T. Case No.NFT (No.3) (D)315/2016 (corresponding to D/Case No.42/98).

¶37

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal No.3^rd , Nagaon, Assam, on 20.07.2022 and thereafter, the Tribunal will proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶38

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Nagaon District without giving details of the place of destination and her place of stay to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon.

¶39

With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Copy of this order be furnished to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon for doing the needful.

¶41

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Musstt. Sajida Khatun @ Musstt Sazeda Khatoon @ Sajida Khatun @ Sajida Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musstt. Sajida Khatun @ Musstt Sazeda Khatoon @ Sajida Khatun @ Sajida Begum 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasadhar Mandal @ Shashadhar Mandal Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Jilal Haque Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ismail Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Husna Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Banes Ali @ Banas Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Musst. Monowara Begum @ Manuwara @ Manobara Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.