GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 7:

1. Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Ms. N. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 15-06-2023 rendered by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Barpeta, Assam in Case No. 219/2016 arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 4849(A) declaring the petitioner as foreigner who had entered India illegally after 25-03-1971. The petitioner had been taken into custody on 20-12-2024 and at the time of instituting the present proceeding he was lodged in the Transit Camp at Matia, Goalpara. While issuing notice on 26-03-2025, the records of the proceedings before the Tribunal were called for, keeping the consideration of the prayer for bail to be considered on receipt of the records from the Tribunal. The petitioner was protected from deportation in the interim.

3. The Trial Courts Records have been received and perused. As per records, the proceeding against the writ petitioner had arisen out of the IMDT Case No. 4849(A) on a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 suspecting the writ petitioner to be an illegal immigrant. Upon the IMDT Act, 1983 being declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. UoI reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, the matter stood transferred under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with the provisions of Foreigners Tribunal Orders, 1964 to the Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Barpeta, Assam and came to be registered as Case No. FT (5th) No. 219/2016.

4. On receipt of notice, the writ petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement and also filed his evidence on affidavit and exhibited the following documents relied upon by him to support his contention that he was a bonafide citizen of India by birth.

"1. Exhibit No. A - Certified copy of Jamabandi

2. Exhibit No. B - Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1971

3. Exhibit No. C - Land revenue receipt.

4. Exhibit No. D - School certificate

5. Exhibit No. E - Gaonburah certificate

6. Exhibit No. F - Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1997

7. Exhibit No. G - Photocopy of Elector Photo Identity Card

8. Exhibit No. H - Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1985

9. Exhibit No. I - Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1989"

5. The petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and adduced another witness as DW-2. The DW-2 in his evidence claimed to be the brother of the petitioner and adduced evidence in favour of the petitioner. The tribunal had taken into account the evidence adduced by the writ petitioner and had come to a conclusion that careful perusal of the exhibits relied upon by the petitioner did not support the case of the petitioner and in fact, if taken on their face value, lead to self contradictory and misleading presumptions.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x4sT6acXOBd5r%2B4z2mspZLw9At9MKGXcLzwY5osOghat&caseno=WP(C)/1681/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010045772025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.