Disposed

Nur Islam v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 May 2026WP(C)/2243/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of the 'D' doubtful-voter tag from his name in the 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 refer the matter to the competent Foreigners Tribunal within two months if not already referred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SP(B) Goalpara to verify prior referral and, if not already referred, refer the petitioner's case to the Foreigners Tribunal within two months; information to be communicated if already r

Nur Islam Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Election Law | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010080292026

2026:GAU-AS:6057

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2243/2026

¶6

NUR ISLAM

¶7

S/O LATE CHEKAN ALI ALIAS SEKENDAR ALI, VILL- HASHDOBA, P.S.LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM. PIN- 783129

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1

¶10

2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NIRVACHAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI-1

¶11

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06

¶12

4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT COMMSSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101

¶14

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 78310

¶17

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Uddin, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Payeng, SC, NRC : Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI : Mr. M. Chetia, Government Advocate : Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 04.05.2026

¶22

Heard Mr. J. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. I have also heard Ms. S. Katakey, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2; Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6; Mr. J. Payeng, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4.

¶23

The case of the Petitioner is that in the voters list of 2017, 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 his name from the voters list.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 39 No. Jaleswar 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.

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

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 his case.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Nur Islam v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nur Islam 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

Nilufa Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. Vs Mahalaxmi Enterprises and 3 Ors.

Ravi Brothers Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S S. D. Enterprise Vs State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ms Manaranjan Brahma Enterprise Vs Akash Deep

Charu Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.