Remanded

Mamiran Nessa v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Feb 2023WP(C)/716/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Foreigners Tribunal opinion as India citizen per father in 1965 voters list. Court remanded case for reasoned order based on voting and marriage records. No coercive action pending.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to Foreigners Tribunal to re-examine citizenship status based on 1965 voters list and marriage documents; no coercive action against petitioner.

Mamiran Nessa Vs the Union of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010004452023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/716/2023

¶5

MAMIRAN NESSA D/O- LATE IBRAHIM ALI, W/O- RAMJAN ALI , R/O- VILLAGE MAIRAJAR PATHAR, P.S- BARPETA ROAD, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM,

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶8

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

¶9

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001

¶10

4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G.S ROAD. BHANGAGARH

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

GUWAHATI-05 DIST- KAMRUP (M) 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O AND DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA P.O AND DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BARPETA ROAD POLICE STATION P.O -BARPETA ROAD DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH

¶14

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

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 15.02.2023 (A.M. Bujor Barua, J)

¶18

Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, being the Union of India. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 6 and 7, being the authorities in the Home Department; Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, being the Election Commission of India; Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, being the Assam State Co-ordinator of NRC

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

and Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, being the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta.

¶21

The petitioner Mamiran Nessa, daughter of late Ibrahim Ali, wife of Ramjan Ali of village Mairajar Pathar, PS Barpeta Road in the Barpeta district was referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 9 at Barpeta for an opinion as to whether she is a person who had entered the State of Assam subsequent to

¶22

25.03.1971 and accordingly, F.T. 9^th (BPT) Case No. 651/2018 corresponding to S.P. Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 6911/98 was registered against the petitioner. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner took the stand that she is the daughter of Ibrahim Ali son of Afsar where the name of Ibrahim Ali appears at Sl. No. 418 of the voters’ list of 1965 of village Bilashipara, Mouza Gobardhana, Sub-Division Barpeta (Sadar). The petitioner also refers to the kabin nama as regards her marriage wherein the name of the bride is Mamiran Nessa daughter of Ibrahim Ali, resident of Bilashipara.

¶23

If the name of Ibrahim Ali of village Bilashipara appears in the voters’ list of 1965 and as per the information contained in the kabin nama the petitioner is the daughter of Ibrahim Ali of village Bilashipara, prima facie it is established that the petitioner would be a citizen of India and not a person who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971.

¶24

Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 9 at Barpeta to examine the aforesaid aspect and pass a reasoned order thereon. If the reasoned order to be passed is in favour of the petitioner, same shall

¶25

prevail over the earlier opinion dated 27.01.2022 in F.T. 9^th (BPT) Case No. 651/2018 corresponding to S.P. Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 6911/98 and on the other hand, if the reasoned order to be passed is against the petitioner, implications under the law would follow. The petitioner to appear before the Tribunal on

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

22.03.2023. If for the purpose the petitioner desires to produce any further material, the petitioner would be at liberty to do so. On the other hand, if the State authorities are of the view that the petitioner Mamiran Nessa daughter of Ibrahim Ali of village Bilashipara and Ibrahim Ali of the voters’ list of 1965 also of village Bilashipara are two different persons, the State authorities would be at liberty to bring in their evidence to controvert materials that the petitioner may produce. No coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the reasoned order of the Tribunal is passed.

¶28

Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.

¶29

J U D G E J U D G E

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Mamiran Nessa v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamiran Nessa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukla Rani Deb Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Ala Uddin Vs the Union of India

Gazi Rahman @ Gajori Rahman Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Lal Bhanu@Musstt Nalbhanu Khatoon Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.