Jahanara Begum Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

6:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON P.O. NAGAON 88 NO. SAMGURI LAC DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM.PIN CODE-782001 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KALIABOR REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM.PIN CODE-782001

¶19

8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)

¶20

NAGAON P.O. NAGAON DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM.PIN CODE-78200

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAJUMDAR, MS. J GHOSH,MR. JUNM LASKAR

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

18.03.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent nos. 3 & 6; Ms. S. Doley, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home & FT/NRC for the respondent nos. 2 & 8; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 5 & 7.

¶27

The petitioner has stated that the name of the father of the petitioner appeared in the Electoral Rolls of 1965 & 1970 published for No. 90 Kaliabor Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC]. Subsequently, the names of the parents of the petitioner also appeared in the Electoral Roll

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

of 1997 from No. 88 Samaguri LAC. The name of the petitioner appeared for the first time in 1997 along with the name of her husband as voters and residents of Village – Paschim Larimukh, Police Station – Rupahihat, District – Nagaon in the electoral roll published for No. 88 Samaguri LAC. Though the name of the petitioner appeared in the Electoral Roll of 2008 from Samaguri LAC, ‘D’ mark has been put against his name. ‘D’ mark appeared subsequently also in the Electoral Roll till 2017 as well as in the subsequent years.

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved because of the tag ‘D’ mentioned against her name in the Voters List of 2017 onwards in the electoral roll published in respect of No. 88 Samaguri LAC, as a resident of Village – Paschim Larimukh, Police Station – Rupahihat, District - Nagaon as repeated approaches to the respondent authorities did not bring out the desired result of removal of ‘D’ mark.

¶31

With a projection that the respondent authorities had failed to do the needful, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction that the ‘D’ Voter tagged with the name of the petitioner in the Voters List be removed.

¶32

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 embark on a fact finding exercise to decide such a question which depends on the evidence that may be produced.

¶33

In the circumstances, this Court therefore directs the respondent no. 6 i.e. the Superintendent of Police [Border], Nagaon 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 respondent no. 6 to refer the case of the petitioner as regards the mark ‘D’ in the Voters List in respect to No. 88 Samaguri LAC to a competent Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon district for an appropriate adjudication as regards the status of the petitioner as ‘D’ Voter in the concerned Voters List.

¶34

Reference be made within a period of 2 [two] months from the date of receipt of a

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

certified copy of this order. Upon such reference being made, the petitioner may participate in such proceedings and establish her case.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Jahanara Begum v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahanara Begum v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhabananda Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Mousumi Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ucn Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Ms Borthakur and Associates Vs Megha Nidhi Dahal IAS

Atul Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dulu Mani Rajkhowa Vs Sri Hemanta Pegu Acs and Anr.