Disposed

Sabura Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2025WP(C)/6154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of the 'D' doubtful-voter mark against her name in the 1997 voters list. The Court held that D-voter status is a factual question for the Foreigners Tribunal and directed SP (B) Goalpara to verify and, if not already referred, refer her case to the Foreigners Tribunal within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sabura Khatun Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors. — Election Law | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010178382025

2025:GAU-AS:16914

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6154/2025

¶6

SABURA KHATUN

¶7

W/O- MOTLEB ALI, D/O- ABDUL HOQUE, VILLAGE- KHUTAMARI, P.O.DARIDURI, P.S. GOALPARA, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01

¶11

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶12

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01

¶13

4:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶14

5:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER OF GOALPARA P.O. AND P.S. GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (DC) GOALPARA

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

P.O. AND P.S. GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA (BORDER) P.O. AND P.S. GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 78312

¶17

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC Mr. A. Ali, Standing Counsel

¶18

Mr. G. Sarma, Standing Counsel

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 08.12.2025

¶23

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Union of India; Mr. A. Ali, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the ECI and Mr. G. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the NRC.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that in the voters list of 1997, the name of the petitioner was marked with the letter “D” and thereupon the petitioner has approached the concerned Respondent Authorities for removal of the tag “D” in her name from the voters list.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

As the concerned Respondent Authorities had failed to do so, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction that the letter “D” tagged with the name of the petitioner in the voters list be removed.

¶27

Whether a person is a “D” voter or not is a matter of factual determination and the appropriate forum to do the same is the concerned Foreigners Tribunal. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not have the competence to decide such a question which depends on the evidence that may be produced.

¶28

In the circumstances, this Court therefore directs the respondent No.6 i.e., the Superintendent of Police (B), Goalpara to verify as to whether the petitioner has already been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal and if upon verification, it is found that the petitioner has not been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, this Court further directs the said respondent No.6 to refer the case of the petitioner as regards the mark “D” in the voters list in respect to 38 Goalpara West LAC to a competent Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara District for an appropriate adjudication as regards the status of the petitioner as “D” voter in the concerned voters list.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

Reference be made within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such reference being made, the petitioner may participate in such proceedings and establish her case.

¶31

If the case of the petitioner as per the records had already been referred to the relevant Foreigners Tribunal, there would be no requirement to make any further reference and the detailed information of the earlier reference be communicated to the petitioner.

¶32

With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Sabura Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sabura Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anwar Hussain Ahmed Vs Sri Narayan Das

Kosiron Nessa Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Chan Mahmud @ Chanmamud Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Nurjamal Sheikh Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nurjamal Sheikh Vs the State of Assam

Pradip Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.