Remanded

Mohan Lal Das and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026WP(C)/5925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding citizenship declarations. The Court held that since the burden of proof is on the petitioner and there were procedural defects in the documentary evidence submitted before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication. Petitioners were directed to submit original documents within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before Tribunal-4th, Cachar by 30.09.2026 to submit original documents for fresh adjudication.

Mohan Lal Das and Anr. Vs the Union of India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010182742022

2026:GAU-

AS:13751-DB

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

¶6

Case No. : WP(C)/5925/2022

¶7

MOHAN LAL DAS AND ANR. S/O- LATE GAGAN DAS , VILL- SAYEDPUR PART-III, P.O- SAYEDPUR AMTOLA, P.S- KATIGORAH, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788815

¶8

2: PUSHPA LATA DAS @ PUSHPA DAS D/O- MOHAN LAL DAS

¶9

VILL- SAYEDPUR PART-III

¶10

P.O- SAYEDPUR AMTOLA

¶11

P.S- KATIGORAH

¶12

DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78881

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶15

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

¶16

2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶17

NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001

¶18

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶19

Page No.# 2/7

¶20

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 DIST- KAMRUP (M) 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST- CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DIST- CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSA

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, MS. S PHUKAN

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. P P DUTTA (FOR BAR COUNCIL OF ASSAM ETC.),GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T

¶23

Linked Case : WP(C)/6090/2022

¶24

SMT. PROMILA BALA DAS AND 4 ORS. W/O- MOHAN LAL DAS

¶25

D/O- LATE JAMINI KANTA DAS

¶26

2: MOHAN LAL DAS S/O- LATE GAGAN DAS

¶27

3: SREEDAM DAS S/O- MOHAN LAL DAS

¶28

Page No.# 3/7

¶29

4: SADHU DAS @ MADHU DAS S/O- MOHAN LAL DAS

¶30

5: SUMAN BALA DAS D/O- MOHAN LAL DAS

¶31

ALL ARE OF - VILLAGE - SAYEDPUR AMTOLA P.S- KATIGORAH DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788815 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G.S ROAD. BHARALUPAR BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 DIST- KAMRUP (M) 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST- CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM

¶32

Page No.# 4/7

¶33

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DIST- CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM

¶34

-----------Advocate for : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶35

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Date : 16.09.2026 (S.K. Medhi, J)

¶38

Both these writ petitions being filed against a common opinion rendered in three F.T. cases with identical grounds, the same are taken up for an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. By the common judgment, 3 (three) Reference cases were disposed of.

¶39

WP(C)/5925/2022 pertains to Case No. FT 4^th /380/2017 which was against Smt. Monmohini Das who is the mother of the petitioner no. 1. However, the said Monmohini Das expired and was accordingly substituted by her son Shri Mohan Lal Das (petitioner no. 1) and her granddaughter Smt. Pushpa Lata Das (petitioner no. 2).

¶40

WP(C)/6090/2022 pertains to Case No. FT 4^th 379/2017 which was against the 5 (five) petitioners who are the family members including the petitioner no. 1 in WP(C)/5925/2022.

¶41

By the common impugned opinion dated 21.05.2022, the References have

¶42

Page No.# 5/7

¶43

been answered against the petitioners and in favour of the State, by declaring them to be foreigners.

¶44

We have heard Shri S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as Ms. L. Devi, learned CGC for the Union of India; Ms. A. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department & NRC; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Government Counsel for the State. We have also perused the Trial Court Records which were called for.

¶45

Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the primary ground of passing the impugned opinion is that the exhibited documents which were photocopies were lacking in the aspect that there was no endorsement of being compared with the originals. He has submitted that the exhibit markings were also missing and this happened because of either inadvertence or lack of due diligence by the learned counsel of the petitioners in the Tribunal. He has however firmly submitted that all the documents in original were handed over to the learned counsel, who had handled their cases before the learned Tribunal. He has however submitted that all the documents in original are presently with him and have, in fact placed those before us. He has submitted that since the only ground of passing the impugned opinion is not being able to prove the documents in accordance with law, an opportunity be granted by remanding the matter so that the defect can be rectified.

¶46

The learned counsel for the respondents have not raised serious objection on the proposition advanced by Shri Purkayastha. They have however defended the opinion by stating that the recourse adopted by the learned Tribunal was in

¶47

Page No.# 6/7

¶48

accordance with law as the documents were not proved as prescribed.

¶49

Section 9 of the Foreigners Tribunal Act, 1946, reads as follows:-

¶50

“9. Burden of proof.—If in any case not falling under Section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person.”

¶51

It is a settled proposition of law that the burden of proof is upon a proceedee in a matter of this nature and such burden does not shift.

¶52

In the instant case, it appears that though the documents in original were handed over to the learned counsel appearing in the learned Tribunal, there was no exhibit markings in the photocopies of the documents. There was further lack of the endorsement that those were compared with the originals. When the aspect of citizenship is in question, a proceedee is required to be given an adequate opportunity and for the fault of a lawyer, the proceedee should not be deprived of such opportunity.

¶53

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the matters are remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh adjudication, which is to be done after permitting the petitioners (proceedees) to submit the documents in original, the photocopies of which have already been part of the pleadings and evidence.

¶54

The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Foreigner’s

¶55

Page No.# 7/7

¶56

Tribunal-4^th , Cachar at Silchar on or before 30.09.2026 and on such appearance, they would submit the original documents. It is also made clear that since the documents are common, the set of original documents be considered in both the cases. The learned Tribunal would accordingly fix a date for argument and thereafter, pass an opinion in accordance with law.

¶57

The Trial Court Records be sent back forthwith.

¶58

Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶59

JUDGE JUDGE

¶60

Comparing Assistant

Mohan Lal Das and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Das and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases