Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The Union Of India And Othrs on 17 February, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010284462025
2026:GAU-AS:2320-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7411/2025
NASIMUDDIN
S/O LATE YASIK ALI SHEIKH. R/O VILL.- DALGAON KHUTI P.O. AND P.S.--
DALGAON DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS
, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-01.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-01
INDIA.
4:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR
NRC
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI -05
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DARRANG
Page No.# 2/8
MONGALDAI
DIST.- DARRANG
ASSAM. PIN- 784115
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
DARRANG
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM. PIN- 78411
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS K TAYE, MS. M KHATUN,MR A ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T,SC, ECI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 17.02.2026
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. T.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned
standing counsel for respondent no.3; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel
for the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior
Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 22.08.2019,
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5 th), Darrang, Mangaldai, in
Case No. F.T.(V) 2210/2016, arising out of S.P. Enquiry No. 6274/98, whereby
the petitioner, namely, Nasimuddin was declared to be a foreigner of post
25.03.1971 stream.
3. This writ petition, to assail the opinion dated 22.08.2019, has
Page No.# 3/8
been filed on 17.12.2025, i.e. after 6 years, 3 months, 25 day (or 2309 days).
Accordingly, before issuing notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner was
asked to address the Court on inordinate delay and laches in assailing the
impugned opinion.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to explain the
delay in assailing the opinion dated 22.08.2019, by filing this writ petition on
19.12.2025, has submitted that after the opinion was rendered on 22.08.2019,
the petitioner was taken into custody and during Covid-19 Pandemic period, he
was released on bail 24.03.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner was under the
impression that he was acquitted. Thereafter, the petitioner was again taken
into custody on 25.05.2025 and kept at the Transit camp, Matia, Goalpara.
Thereafter, the petitioner’s son had filed a writ petition on behalf of the
petitioner, which was registered as W.P.(C) 6823/2025, which was subsequently
withdrawn and the present writ petition was filed.
5. It has been submitted that the petitioner has all the documents
which prove that he is a citizen of India, but due to poverty and lack of
knowledge of legal procedures, the petitioner was under the impression that
with his release on 24.03.2022, he was acquitted.
6. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner deserves
to be heard in this writ petition, otherwise his valuable citizenship right would be
extinguished if the opinion is not interfered with.
7. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has submitted that there is a substantial delay in assailing the
impugned opinion, which cannot be condoned and/or ignored on account of
delay and laches. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel for the FT and
Page No.# 4/8
Border matters has opposed the prayer for admitting this writ petition for
hearing and for granting bail to the petitioner.
8. On perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed to the writ
petition, it is seen that the petitioner, in support of his claim of being an Indian
citizen has exhibited the following documents, viz., NRC of 1951 (Ext.1); NRC of
1951 issued by Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind (Ext.2); Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC
for short) of one Jashimuddin, his projected brother (Ext.3); EPIC of his
projected mother (Ext.4); application of inclusion of name in NRC dated
20.08.2015 (Ext.5); and application of inclusion of name in NRC dated
10.08.2015 (Ext.6); certificate dated 17.04.2018, issued by Gaonburah (Ext.7).
9. In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the FT and
Border matters had submitted that the NRC print-out of 1951 was prepared
under the Census Act, 1948, which is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 15
of the said Act. Moreover, by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of
Abdul Mojid @ Modid Ali v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 6090/2016 , decided
on 15.03.2018, this Court had held that NRC statements at this stage is not
admissible because NRC updation process is only at the draft stage. Moreover,
by relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Ahitan Nessa v. Union of
India & Ors., W.P. (C) 6443/2017, decided on 19.12.2017, it was submitted that
this Court had held that the NRC legacy data, besides being inadmissible
evidence, is a computer generated statement and thus, Section 65-B (4) of the
Evidence Act, 1872 would be applicable.
10. Thus, the only documents exhibited by the petitioner are the NRC legacy
data of 1951 (Ext.1 and Ext.2) and the acknowledgement of receipt of application for
NRC (Ext.5 and Ext.6), which, as per the decisions cited by the learned standing counsel
for the FT and Border matters, are inadmissible in evidence. Ext.3 and Ext.4 are EPIC
Page No.# 5/8
and in that regard, it may be stated that this Court in the case of Md. Babul Islam v.
Union of India, W.P.(C) 3547/16, decided on 09.05.2018, has held that EPIC is not a
valid piece of evidence in absence of supporting evidence. In any case, they are post
reference documents. The certificate issued by the Gaonburah (Ext.7), was not proved
by examining the author. Therefore, the documents exhibited by the petitioner are not
found to help him to establish that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Thus, the
petitioner is found to have failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 of proving that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner.
11. The Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 46 of the case of Urban
Improvement Trust (supra), has reiterated the law that undue delay in approaching the
Court can be a ground for refusing relief and it has been expressed that only in
exceptional cases, delay can be condoned. The said paragraph 46 is quoted below:-
“46. As regards the appellant’s challenge to the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing of the
writ petitions by the respondents, we are of the view that the same needs to be considered in
the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is true that the courts have consistently
held that undue delay in approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the
courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the impugned action is
patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the delay must be condoned.”
12. In respect of the legal proposition that delay and laches is fatal to a belated
challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, it may be relevant to refer to the
decision of this Court in the case of Jonali Das v. Union of India, 2018 (5) GLT 492:
(2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1186. Paragraph 9 thereof is as follows:-
“9. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.4971/2018, disposed
of on 01.08.2018], this Court had observed as follows:-
“It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has
been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention
of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that
unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of
the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and
should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person
Page No.# 6/8who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable
opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person
does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk
and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a
fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a
farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of
identification and deportation of foreigners.”
13. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by
LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme(SC)
1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court,
when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals,
under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the
petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the
inordinate delay in assailing the opinion.
14. Moreover, this Court, in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India,
(2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, had held to the effect that the plea of compliance
with the principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical
situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and
deportation of foreigners. A similar opinion has also been expressed by this
Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813.
15. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal
v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that
the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional
provision. In paragraph 63, the Supreme Court of India had observed that there
can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external
Page No.# 7/8
aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of
Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of
India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such
external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the
Constitution of India. In paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of
Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to
the integrity and security of the North Eastern region and that their presence
has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of
Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts.
16. The stand of the petitioner that on being released on bail on
24.03.2022, he was under the impression that he was acquitted, cannot be
accepted as a good and sufficient cause to condone the delay of more than 6
years in assailing the impugned opinion. Moreover, on examination of the
pleadings and evidence, including the documentary evidence, which are referred
to above, the petitioner is found to have failed in discharging his burden of
proof, as cast upon the petitioner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946,
that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner.
17. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition
fails on merit as the documents exhibited by the petitioner do not help the
petitioner to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. Moreover, the
reasons assigned for the delay of 6 years, 3 months, 25 days (or 2309 days) are
not at all satisfactory on any count. Therefore, this writ petition also deserves to
be dismissed on account of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of 6
years, 3 months, 25 days (or 2309 days) in assailing the opinion dated
22.08.2009, by filing this writ petition on 17.12.2025.
18. Thus, the challenge to the impugned opinion dated 22.08.2019,
Page No.# 8/8
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5 th), Darrang, Mangaldai, in
Case No. F.T.(V) 2210/2016, arising out of S.P. Enquiry No. 6274/98, fails and
this writ petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of
notice on the respondents.
19. There shall be no order as to cost.
20. The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and
NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and
Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of
the record of the learned Tribunal for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
