Dismissed

Sabera Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Mar 2026WP(C)/917/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A proceedee before Foreigners Tribunal No.4 sought quashing of her proceeding after it emerged that Local Verification Officers' reports in two IM(D)T cases had been swapped and were later corrected by exchange. The High Court held that with the correct LVO report restored to the record, the reference must be proceeded with and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sabera Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/15

GAHC010032692026

2026:GAU-AS:3672-DB

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/917/2026

¶6

SABERA BEGUM

¶7

W/O LAE ABBAS ALI, R/O KATABARI, P.S. GORCHUK, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 1

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶11

3:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER

¶12

KAMRUP (M) P.O. HENGRABARI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI 36

¶13

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (B) KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI CITY DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

¶14

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

¶15

Page No.# 2/15

¶16

NEW DELHI TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

¶17

NEW DELHI 1

¶18

6:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION

¶19

ASSAM BHANGAGARH LACHIT NAGAR GUWAHATI

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K R CHOUDHURY, MR M HUSSAIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR. N HAQUE

¶21

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

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 13.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J)

¶26

Heard Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3; and Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.5.

¶27

The background facts of this case are as follows:-

¶28

a. The petitioner was served with a notice to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal No.4^th , Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in connection with F.T. D.V.K. Case No. 7/2024 (arising out of F.T. Case No. 5600/98). The petitioner, upon appearing in the said proceeding, had filed a petition under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the CPC for framing a preliminary issue

¶29

Page No.# 3/15

¶30

regarding the jurisdiction of the said learned Tribunal to proceed against the petitioner on the ground that there was no enquiry by the Local Verification Officer against the petitioner. The said petition was rejected by the said learned Tribunal by order dated 10.06.2025.

¶31

b. Accordingly, the petitioner had assailed the said order dated 10.06.2025 by filing a writ petition. In the said writ petition, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner had produced a copy of the letter dated 23.07.2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, to the effect that Sabera Begum, wife of Late Abbas Ali of village- Katahbari, P.S. Gorchuk, Guwahati, Assam, as mentioned in the Electoral Registration Officer’s Report vide Annexure-21 is the same person. But, Sahera Begum, wife of Amir Ali of Katahbari, P.S. Gorchuk, Guwahati, Assam, as mentioned in the LVO Report vide Annexure-20 is not the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 14.08.2025, passed in W.P.(C) 3506/2025, set aside the learned Tribunal’s order dated 10.06.2025, and restored the petition no. 46/2025, arising out of application no. 66/2025 to the file of the said learned Tribunal. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to produce a certified copy of the said order dated 14.08.2025, before the said learned Tribunal and to await for further instructions/ orders from the said learned Tribunal.

¶32

Thereafter, the petitioner had produced a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3506/2025 before the learned Tribunal along with petition no. 131/25. The said learned Tribunal, vide order dated 19.08.2025, allowed the prayer made by the learned Govt. Pleader

¶33

Page No.# 4/15

¶34

to take necessary instructions from the referral authority and apprise the Tribunal as regards to the contents of the application vide no. 46/25. Accordingly, for the reasons reflected in the order dated 11.09.2025, directed the referral authority to conduct an enquiry on the basis of documents produced regarding availability of the prima facie grounds against the petitioner forming the basis of a clear suspect, further directing the said report to be submitted within four weeks.

¶35

As per order dated 23.12.2025, the learned Tribunal had recorded that the enquiry report dated 11.12.2025 was received. As per the said report, (a) IM(D)T Case No. 5600/98 was registered against Sabera Begum, wife of Abbas Ali, and (b) IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98 was registered against Sahera Begum, wife of Amir Ali. However, in course of the enquiry, it had appeared that in IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98 at Foreigners Tribunal 5^th , Guwahati, the LVO Report is in the name of Sabera Begum, wife of Late Abbas Ali of village- Katahbari, P.S. Gorchuk, Guwahati, Assam, whereas in the IM(D)T Case No. 5600/98, before the Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Guwahati, LVO Report is in the name of Sahera Begum, wife of Amir Ali of village- Katahbari, P.S. Gorchuk, Guwahati. Thus, there was an exchange of LVO Reports. Accordingly, the case was fixed on 20.01.2026, for further orders. The said order is extracted below:-

¶36

“23.12.2025 Miss A. Kumari, Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader represents the referral authority. Proceedee is present. Enquiry report dated 11.012.2025 is already received. The contents of the Enquiry reports submitted on 10.12.2025 by the Enquiry Officer is clearly perused to find that the IM(D)T case No. 5600/98 was registered against Sabera Begum W/O Abbas Ali and IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98 was registered against Sahera Begum W/O Amir Ali. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer checked the case record of IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98 at FT 5^th , Guwahati and found that LVO record in the name of Sabera Begum W/O Abbas Ali of village Katahbari, PS Garchuk, Guwahati, Assam. As per the

¶37

Page No.# 5/15

¶38

Enquiry Officer both the LVO reports were mismatched during the submission of reference to the respective Tribunals and Sahera and Sabera are two different persons. Another letter dated 22.12.2025 addressed to the Learned Member, Foreigner Tribunal, Kamrup (M) No. 5^th , copy of which has been furnished to this Tribunal, is received to find that Learned Member, Foreigner Tribunal No. 5^th is being requested to correct the case records making the exchange of LVO report of Sahera Begum W/O Amir Ali in F.T. Case No. 3689/2019 (IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98) with the LVO report of Sabera Begum W/O Abbas Ali pending in FT Case No. 7/2024 (IM(D)T Case No. 5600/98) which is pending before this Tribunal. Office to ensure the exchange of the Enquiry Report as and when the communication has been received from the Learned Member Foreigner Tribunal No. 5^th in terms of the letter dated 22:12.2025 vide No. DCP(B)/83/2025. In the light of the aforesaid observations, it is absolutely clear that the quarries raised by the order dated 11.09.2025 has been resolved and the petition vide No. 46/2025 and the quarries raise thereon has been answered by the report so submitted and the letter as discussed. This reference is therefore fixed for further orders till the exchange of the Enquiry Report so as to enable the Tribunal for further proceedings. The letter dated 22.12.2025 is therefore kept with the record.

¶39

Fixing- 20/01/26 for appropriate orders.”

¶40

Thereafter, by order dated 20.01.2026, the said learned Tribunal had recorded that the said learned Tribunal had furnished the LVO Report of Sahera Begum and received the LVO Report of Sabera Begum in terms of the letter dated 22.12.2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (B), in the presence of the Border officials and accordingly, a letter dated 19.01.2026, has been issued by the said learned Tribunal to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (B), that the original LVO Report of Sabera Begum had been entered in the record. The said order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the said learned Tribunal, is extracted below:-

¶41

“20.01.2026 Present: Mr. Ajoy Kumar Phukan, Member

¶42

Miss A. Kumari, Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader represents the referral authority. Today is the date fixed for appropriate orders. This

¶43

Page No.# 6/15

¶44

Tribunal has already furnished the L.V.O report of Sahera Begum and also received the L.V.O report of Sabera Begum in terms of the letter dated 22/12/25 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (b) in presence of the Border officials and accordingly a letter dated 19/01/26 has been issued by this Tribunal to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (B). Original L.V.O report of Sabera Begum thereby has been entered to the record. It is needless to say that the reference was fixed for evidence since 13/05/25 and already sufficient time is elapsed. The Learned Counsel appearing for the proceedee has filed a petition vide no. 267/26 stating there in that the proceedee could not appear before this Tribunal due to unavoidable circumstances and as such her presence may be exempted. The petition as aforementioned is disposed of with a direction to the proceedee shall appear before this Tribunal and file the evidence in the next date fixed.

¶45

Fixing- 17/02/26 for evidence.”

¶46

Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court again and by filing this instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 23.12.2025 and 20.01.2026, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal; for quashing the proceeding pending against the petitioner before the said learned Tribunal and for other and consequential reliefs.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the LVO Report shows that the enquiry against the petitioner was done in a causal manner, with many columns of the Annexures A and B respectively, containing the format for Verification Officer’s Report left blank. It was also submitted that in the LVO Report, it has been recorded that the place of birth of the petitioner was in West Bengal. Hence, it was submitted that the grounds for suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner has not been disclosed to the petitioner. Hence, it was submitted that the proceeding ought not to have been registered against the petitioner in the first place as the reference contained a LVO Report not concerning the petitioner. Secondly, it was submitted that although the LVO

¶48

Page No.# 7/15

¶49

Report was substituted, the grounds of suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner were not supplied to the petitioner for which she could not take all available defence. Hence, it was submitted that the proceeding against the petitioner be quashed along with all the impugned order.

¶50

Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC has made his submissions in support of the continuance of the proceeding.

¶51

Examined the materials available on record in this writ petition. Also perused the instructions dated 02.03.2026, issued by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 4^th , Kamrup (M), Guwahati, as produced by the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC together with enclosures thereto.

¶52

From the said instructions, there remains no doubt that while Sabera Begum, wife of Abbas Ali, is the proceedee in F.T. Case No. 7/2024, which arises out of IM(D)T Case No. 5600/98, Sahera Begum, wife of Amir Ali, was the suspected foreigner in IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98. However, the Verification Officer’s Reports of the two suspects, due to some error, got mixed up. Thus, the Verification Officer’s Report in respect of IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98 was placed in the record of F.T. Case No. 7/2024, pending before the Foreigners Tribunal No.5^th , Kamrup (M), Guwahati, and the Verification Officer’s Report in respect of IM(D)T Case No. 5600/98, before the Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Guwahati, is in the name of Sahera Begum, wife of Amir Ali of villageKatahbari, P.S. Gorchuk, Guwahati.

¶53

The said error that had crept in the two cases, has since been rectified by exchange of correct Verification Officer’s Reports in the concerned

¶54

Page No.# 8/15

¶55

and appropriate Tribunal’s record.

¶56

In respect of the point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be mentioned that it appears from the Reference that the Election Commission of India had ordered revision of the draft electoral roll which was published on 24.07.1997, with reference to qualifying date of 01.01.1997. Accordingly, house-to-house enumeration was conducted between 16.01.1997 to 15.04.1997. As doubt was expressed about the citizenship of the petitioner, whose name was enumerated in the draft roll published on 24.07.1997, the Electoral Registration Officer had entrusted the Local Verification Officer to do the enquiry. The said Verification Officer had submitted his report in Annexure-B format to the Electoral Registration Officer of No. 54 West Gauhati Constituency. The said authority, thereafter, vide AnnexureA format, expressed his doubt about the citizenship of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Electoral Registration Officer had referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police (Border), City, Guwahati, vide reference dated 15.10.1997, who is the competent authority under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1993/ Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. The Superintendent of Police (Border), City, Guwahati, thereafter, made a reference before the then Chairman, IM(D)T, Guwahati, where IM(D)T Case No. 5597/98 was registered.

¶57

It may also be stated that by virtue of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 665, all the proceedings that were then pending before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals [IM(D)T for short], were transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal having jurisdiction. The transferred reference was received by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal

¶58

Page No.# 9/15

¶59

5^th , Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which was registered as F.T. Case No. 7/2024. Therefore, as evident from the decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), the matter was transferred by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, no further determination can be made by this Court regarding making of and/or registration of the reference.

¶60

Be that as it may, the issue of the blank Verification Officer’s Report has been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Shukurjan Nessa @ Sukurjan v Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 245/2019, decided on 28.02.2025. In the said case, the issue relating to reference made at the instance of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO for short) has been clarified.

¶61

It may be stated that as per the Verification Officer’s Report dated 28.09.1997, the said officer was an Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) by profession. It must be understood that the said officer was not trained in law before being entrusted with house-to-house enumeration duty. Therefore, a few of the column nos. of the format bear his remark as “NIL”.

¶62

Hence, it is apparent that in this case in hand, the enquiry by the Verification Officer was not made under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or the Rules framed thereunder. In an enquiry conducted under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the investigation is done by the Border Branch of Police under the authority of the Superintendent of Police (Border) and/or the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), as the case may be, of the concerned district. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (Border) is the prescribed authority to make reference before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal constituted under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶63

Page No.# 10/15

¶64

There is an important facet, which is contained in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, as affirmed by the Division Bench in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019, decided on 29.07.2019, is deemed appropriate to be referred to. As this Bench is in respectful agreement with the said judgment therefore, paragraphs 11 to 22 thereof are quoted below:-

¶65

11 . In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful “D” voters in the electoral rolls after local verification.

¶66

12 . Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise.

¶67

12.1 . As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas.

¶68

12.2 . As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision.

¶69

12.3 . As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was

¶70

Page No.# 11/15

¶71

finally published.

¶72

12.4 . This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Commission were in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India besides conforming to the principles of natural justice. It was held that such guidelines cannot be held to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or partiality.

¶73

13 . At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 is no longer in existence, the same having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. Therefore, in so far paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 is concerned, the reference would be under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

¶74

14 . The above exercise was repeated in the year 2005 with the Election Commission of India again going for intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam taking 01.01.2005 as the qualifying date. In this connection, guidelines dated 17.06.2004 were issued by the Election Commission of India. Paragraph 2.2 of the guidelines dealt with “D” voters. It was mentioned that the guidelines issued in 1997 would be followed while dealing with such category of persons. Paragraph 8 dealt with verification by Electoral Registration Officers. It laid down the procedure while carrying out such verification including verification by Local Verification Officer. As per paragraph 8.6, Local Verification Officer would conduct the verification by making an on the spot visit and the person concerned could adduce any one or more of the documents mentioned therein in support of his claim as a citizen of India. After due verification, the Local Verification Officer was required to submit his report in the prescribed format. Under paragraph 8.8, Electoral Registration Officer on receipt of the verification report from the Local Verification Officer should consider the same. Where he was satisfied about the eligibility of a person, he should allow the name of such person to continue on the electoral roll but where he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person he should refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 in a prepared format (Annexure-B to the guidelines dated 17.06.2004) to the competent authority for making reference to the Tribunal and await the decision of such Tribunal.

¶75

15 . As pointed out by Mr. Barua, in Mameja Khatun (supra) a Single Bench of this Court directed that “D” voters should not be allowed to cast their votes with the clarification that “D” voters would include persons whose names were included in the electoral rolls but their citizenship was doubted or disputed and also those whose cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. This decision of the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.

¶76

Page No.# 12/15

¶77

114/2011 (State Vs Mameja Khatun). By the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015, the Division Bench directed Election Commission of India and other authorities to implement the directions of the Single Bench in letter and spirit. 16 . At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in WP(C) No. 274/2009 filed by Assam Public Works which is pending before the Supreme Court of India wherein NRC updation exercise in the State of Assam is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India, on 25.10.2013, Supreme Court clarified that as far as persons in the “D” list are concerned, undoubtedly they were doubtful voters and therefore their names could not be included unless the NRC is updated and unless the Foreigners Tribunals declared them to be Indian citizens.

¶78

17 . The Foreigners Act, 1946 is an act to confer upon the Central Government certain powers in respect of foreigners. This Act provides for the exercise of certain powers by the Central Government in respect of the entry of foreigners into India; their presence in India and their departure therefrom. Section 2 (a) defines a “foreigner” to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 confers power to the Central Government to make orders making provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or their continued presence therein.

¶79

17.1 . In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Central Government made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As per order 2 (1), the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion.

¶80

18 . Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had issued notification dated 19.04.1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India whereby the President with the consent of the State Government concerned entrusted to the Governments of each of the States mentioned therein including the State of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Another notification dated 17.02.1976 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) under the Government of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 within their respective jurisdictions subject to the conditions mentioned therein which included the condition that exercise of such functions would be in respect of nationals of Bangladesh and that while exercising

¶81

Page No.# 13/15

¶82

such functions, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) shall comply with such general or special directions as the Government of Assam or the Central Government may issue from time to time.

¶83

19 . Article 258 of the Constitution deals with power of the Union to confer powers etc on States in certain cases. Clause (1) of Article 258 starts with a non-obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Clause (3) provides for making of payment by the Government of India to the State concerned such sum as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement through arbitration in respect of any extra-cost of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of powers and duties of the Government of India conferred or imposed upon a State Government.

¶84

20 . Thus, under the Central Government notifications dated 19.04.1958 and 17.02.1976, Government of Assam, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) have been delegated the power to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal under order 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to seek opinion as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

¶85

21 . Thus from the above, what transpires is that there are two categories of “D” voters:- (i). those who were marked as “D” voters in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer following enquiry by Local Verification Officer; and (ii). those whose references are pending before the Foreigners Tribunals.

¶86

22 . In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion.

¶87

Page No.# 14/15

¶88

The said judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sayam Uddin (supra), has stood affirmed by the virtue of the judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeal of Sayam Uddin (supra).

¶89

It would be appropriate to refer to another decision of this Court in the case of Amina Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 (4) GLT 102 (supra), which was decided on 28.04.2022. In the said case, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), based on the Local Verification Officer’s Report, as forwarded by the Elector Registration Officer. But it appears that the previous decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019, decided on 29.07.2019, was not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the well-settled principles of stare decisis, the decision in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) would be per incurium. Accordingly, the decision rendered in the case of Amina Khatun (supra), though not cited, will also not be of any help to the petitioner.

¶90

It may be stated that after the IM(D)T has been disbanded, reference is presently being made in accordance with the Government Notification No. PLB.101/2005/Pt/194 dated 02.02.2006. If one needs to verify as to whether proceeding before the IM(D)T was transferred in this case, the said notification may be referred to. Hence, this Court would exercise restraint in making any comment on (i) the form of reference; (ii) report of the Verification Officer; (iii) reference by Electoral Registration Officer (ERO for short); and (iv) reference by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup (M),

¶91

Page No.# 15/15

¶92

Guwahati. Moreover, as the proceedings were transferred by virtue of orders passed by the Supreme Court of India, the learned Foreigners Tribunals would also have no power or jurisdiction to remand the reference back to the Superintendent of Police (Border) for a fresh enquiry by the Local Verification Officer and/or the Electoral Registration Officer.

¶93

Thus, as the enquiry report dated 02.03.2026 is clear that the correct LVO Report in respect of the petitioner is now attached in the record of F.T. Case No. 7/2024, the Reference has to be proceeded with so as to reach to its logical conclusion. There is no way that the said proceedings can be quashed and/or dropped or rejected and no case for the same has been made out.

¶94

Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶95

The petitioner shall now appear before the said learned Tribunal on the next date fixed and to participate in the proceedings of F.T. Case No. 7/2024, and by producing a certified copy of this order await for further orders that may be passed by the said learned Tribunal on the next date fixed. In other words, the Reference that has been registered against the petitioner has to be proceeded with so as to bring it to its logical conclusion.

¶96

The parties are left to bear their own cost.

¶97

The learned standing counsel for the petitioner shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department.

¶98

JUDGE JUDGE

¶99

Comparing Assistant

Sabera Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sabera Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Dinesh Chandra and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs P J Mohana Panicker and 38 Ors.

Fatema Khatoon Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Srimot Das and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Binoy Das Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Chanmahammad Ali and 134 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.