Momena Begum vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 13 July, 2026

July 19, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Momena Begum vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 13 July, 2026

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the review
petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Chaudhury, learned CGC, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned
standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT
matters and NRC and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Govt. Advocate.

SPONSORED

2. The petitioner namely, Momena Begum, was declared to be a
foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream vide opinion dated 16.02.2016, passed by
the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, in F.T. Case
No.5898/G/2013, arising out of Reference No.3753/98/D/GLP(B) and ERO Case
No.54-12/38. The said opinion was assailed by the petitioner before this Court
by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was
registered as W.P.(C) No. 2854/2016. The said writ petition was dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2018.

Page No.# 3/15

3. The said order dated 06.06.2018 of this Court was
unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India.
However, the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24767/2018,
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 20.09.2018, which is
quoted hereunder:-

Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.

Permission to file additional documents is granted.

Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.

We find no merit in the present Special Leave petition. The Special Leave
Petition is accordingly dismissed.

4. Thus, the opinion dated 16.02.2016 had attained finality.

5. After 3 years, 8 months, 13 days (or 1351 days) of the dismissal
of the said SLP (C) vide order dated 20.09.2018, the present review petition was
filed by the petitioner on 02.06.2022, for review of the order dated 06.06.2018,
passed by this Court in WP(C)/2854/2016.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the
grounds of review are as follows: –

a. This Court had not considered the various documents in its proper
perspective, such as (i) voter’s list; (ii) copies of 2 (two) sale deeds
through which the father of the petitioner had purchased two plots of
land in the year 1982; (iii) voter’s list of 1985; (iv) voter’s list of 1989;

(v) link certificate issued by the Secretary, Kabaitary Gaon Panchayat;

Page No.# 4/15

and (vi) another certificate by Secretary, Kabaitary Gaon Panchayat,
showing the names of legal heirs of Kofur Sheikh, which includes the
name of the petitioner.

b. After the opinion was passed, the name of the petitioner, her
brothers, her son and her sister was recorded in the final NRC
published on 30.07.2018.

c. In a number of judgments, the Supreme Court of India has held that
Courts have ample powers to review its own orders even on
subsequent developments.

d. The petitioner wanted to adduce evidence of her sister, which was
refused by the learned Tribunal.

e. Though the name of Kofur Sheikh appeared in the voter’s list of 1966
and the Secretary, Kabaitary Gaon Panchayat had issued a link
certificate, yet the Tribunal held that the link was not established which
makes no sense at all for which the opinion dated 16.02.2016 is
erroneous, incorrect and illogical and liable to be set aside.

f. Any other ground that may be submitted at the time of hearing.

7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has cited the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara
Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal, (2019) 4 SCC 376 .

8. No other submissions were made and no other cases were cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Page No.# 5/15

9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Border and FT
matters has submitted to support the order dated 06.06.2018, passed in W.P.(C)
No.2854/2016.

10. From the contents of the order dated 20.09.2018, passed by the
Supreme Court of India in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
24767/2018, it is amply clear that the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India,
apart from hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, had perused the
relevant materials and found no merit in the Special Leave Petition and the
same was dismissed. However, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited (supra), though the said order
dated 20.09.2018, passed by the Supreme Court of India cannot be said to be a
non-speaking order, yet, the doctrine of merger would not be attracted and it
cannot be said that the opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal got merged
with the order passed by the Supreme Court of India.

On inordinate delay and laches:

11. As stated hereinbefore, the Supreme Court of India had
dismissed the Special Leave Petition by order dated 20.09.2018 and the present
review petition was filed on 02.06.2022, after an inordinate delay of 3 years, 8
months, 13 days (or 1351 days). Although the Articles of Schedule to the
Limitation Act do not apply to a writ petition or to an application for review
arising out of orders passed in a writ petition, but still the principles of delay and
laches would be attracted under the facts and circumstances of this case.

12. Except for submitting that after the Supreme Court of India had
dismissed the SLP (C) by order dated 20.09.2018, Covid-19 pandemic had set
Page No.# 6/15

in, no other explanation was offered. In this regard, it may be stated that the
Supreme Court of India, by its orders, had extended the period of limitation due
to Covid-19 pandemic from 25.03.2020 till 01.03.2022. However, the said
extension of limitation would not benefit the petitioner because:-

a. W.P. (C) No. 2854/2016, was dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 06.06.2018, and this review petition was filed on 02.06.2022.
The time spent from 06.06.2018 to 25.03.2020, is about 1 year, 9
month, 19 days (or 658 days).

b. The time spent from 06.06.2018 (date of dismissal of writ petition) to
02.06.2022 (date of filing of review petition) is about 3 years, 11
months, 27 days (or 1457 days).

c. The time spent from 20.09.2018 [date of dismissal of SLP (C)] to
02.06.2022 (date of filing of this review petition) is 3 years, 8 months,

13 days (or 1351 days).

13. Thus, it is apparent that the review petition had not been filed by
the petitioner with promptitude but this review petition was filed in a leisurely
manner with no regard to urgency though the petitioner was declared to be a
foreigner.

14. Therefore, this review petition fails on the ground of inordinate
delay and laches in delay in filing this review petition.

Lack of pleadings and evidence regarding existence of relationship of the
petitioner with projected sister of the petitioner:

15. In this review petition, the petitioner projects that there has
Page No.# 7/15

been a subsequent development inasmuch as, the projected sister of the
petitioner, namely, Kafia Begum, was declared to be not a foreigner.

16. In the said context, the learned counsel for the petitioner could
not show from the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner before
the learned Foreigners Tribunal that she had disclosed the name of any of her
siblings including Kafia Begum, the proceedee in F.T. Case No.4629/G/11, which
was decided by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show from any
material on record that Kafia Begum, the proceedee in F.T. Case No.4629/G/11,
had disclosed that Momena Begum, the petitioner, was her sister. Thus, neither
in the pleadings nor in the evidence tendered by the petitioner, she had
disclosed about the existence of her relationship as sister of Kafia Begum.

Whether the learned Tribunal refused any prayer made by the petitioner to
examine her projected sister as her witness:

17. Apart from examining herself as DW-1, the learned counsel for
the petitioner could not show from anything available on record that the
petitioner had examined any other witness before the learned Tribunal.

18. The record of W.P.(C) No. 2854/2016 had been called for and
tagged with the record. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not
make any attempt to show that any document was annexed to the writ petition
to show that the petitioner had produced Kafia Begum, her projected sister as a
witness and the learned Tribunal had refused to examine the said Kafia Begum
as one of the witnesses of the petitioner. Moreover, there is also nothing on
record either in the writ petition or in the instant review petition that the
Page No.# 8/15

petitioner had filed any petition to allow her to take steps to summon her
projected sister to give evidence, but the said prayer was rejected by the
learned Tribunal.

19. The said plea appears to be a baseless one because the opinion
against the petitioner was passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1,
Goalpara, on 16.02.2016, which was either concealed or not brought to the
notice of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, by the said
Kafia Begum, projected sister of the petitioner, when F.T. Case No.4629/G/11, in
respect of Kafia Begum was decided vide opinion dated 27.02.2019. Therefore,
if Kafia Begum is actually the sister of the petitioner, then it can safely be
presumed that the said Kafia Begum had suppressed material facts from the
learned Tribunal and/ or the only other possibility is that the said Kafia Begum is
unconnected to the petitioner, namely, Momena Begum.

20. Thus, the petitioner has miserably failed to show or establish
that the learned Tribunal had refused any prayer made by the petitioner to
examine her projected sister as her witness. The plea is ex facie false and
untenable.

Entry of the petitioner in NRC subsequent to passing of the opinion against her:

21. In so far as the entry of the name of the petitioner and her other
siblings and son in the NRC is concerned, the date on which such entry/ entries
were made and/ or printout was obtained, is not available in Annexure-E to
Annexure-I to this review petition, but as per the statement made in the
grounds of review, the entry in the NRC was made/ published on 30.07.2018.
However, on a perusal of Annexure-E to Annexure-I to this review petition it is
Page No.# 9/15

seen that there is a note of disclaimer in the said print out to the following
effect: –

“c. Discovery at any point of time of a person being ineligible for inclusion in
NRC on account of being a Declared Foreigner (post-1971 illegal migrant or FRRO
un-registered of 1966-71 stream) or a person with a case pending at Foreigners
Tribunal or D (Doubtful) voter or descendant of such person (as per eligibility …) .”

(It is clarified that the said annexures are incomplete document and complete
sentence extracted hereinbefore is not available in the print-out).

22. It may further be stated that in the NRC printouts, while the
name of the father of Momena Begum is Kofur Rahman, the name of father of
Mohibul Hussain, is Kofur Ali. Therefore, a mere submission that Kofur Rahman
and Kofur Ali are same and one person, is not admissible in the absence of any
cogent and admissible record.

23. This Court, in the case of Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali v. Union of
India & Ors., 2019 (2) GLT 45, while approving the decision in the case of
Bhanbhasa Seikh v. Union of India, 1970 Assam LR 206 , held that NRC extract
produced to prove domicile in India is inadmissible in evidence.

24. This Court, in the case of Abdul Majid v. Union of India, W.P.(C)
6090/2016, decided on 15.03.2018, held that NRC statements, at this stage, is
not admissible because NRC updation process is only at the draft stage.

25. In the case of Ahitan Nessa v. Union of India, W.P. (C)
6443/2017, decided on 19.12.2017, this Court had held that NRC legacy data,
besides being inadmissible evidence, is a computer generated statement and
therefore, Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be
applicable.

Page No.# 10/15

26. In this case, reference was made by the ERO, i.e. Electoral
Registration Officer, who had reasons to doubt the entry of the name of the
petitioner in the voter list of 1997, and against the name of those voters who
were found doubtful, ‘D’ mark was made against their names. The legality of the
exercise was challenged in the case of H.R.A. Choudhury v. Election Commission
of India, 2002 (1) GLT 1 , where reference was made to the requirement of the
ERO to consider the report of the LVO and to decide whether the name of a
doubtful voter should be allowed to continue in the electoral rolls. In the said
case, reference was made to the directions contained in the case of H.M. Trivedi
v. V.B. Raju, AIR 1973 SC 2602 , where it was held that the Representation of
the People Act, 1950, provides a complete code in the matter of preparation and
maintenance of electoral rolls. Reference was also made to the case of
Kamaluddin v. State of Assam, 2000 (2) GLT 79 , where this Court had expressed
its displeasure with regard to the casual manner in which the voter’s list was
prepared in Assam. Reference has also been made regarding extensive revision
of rolls with reference to 01.07.1997 as the qualifying date.

27. In the case of Assam Public Works v. Union of India, W.P.(C)
274/2009, the Supreme Court, by order dated 25.10.2013, had clarified that
names of ‘D’ voters cannot be included unless the NRC is updated or FTs declare
them to be Indian Citizen. In the case of Mameja Khatun, W.P.(C) No.
1334/2009, decided on 07.08.2009, it was directed by the learned Single Judge
that doubtful voters should not be allowed to vote. The same was approved by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. Mameza
Khatun, W.A. No. 114/2011, decided on 13.10.2015, where the Election
Commission of India was directed to implement the order of the learned Single
Page No.# 11/15

Judge in letter and spirit.

28. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rofiqul Hoque v.
Union of India, 2025 INSC 730: AIR 2025 SC 2577: (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 870 ,
had held that subsequent to declaration by the Foreigners Tribunal that the
appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included
in the draft NRC. Moreover, it was also held that even if it has been included, it
will not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.

29. Therefore, in the absence of pleadings and evidence tendered by
the petitioner in the proceedings of F.T. Case No. 5898/G/2013, which was
decided by opinion dated 16.02.2018, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
been able to make out a case that Kafia Begum, the proceedee in F.T. Case
No.4629/G/11, which was decided by opinion dated 27.02.2019, is the projected
sister of the petitioner.

30. Plea has been taken for the first time in this review petition that
the petitioner wanted to examine her sister as witness, which was refused by
the learned Tribunal. In the grounds of review, the name of the sister is not
disclosed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any
document to support such plea.

31. On a perusal of (i) opinion dated 16.02.2016, rendered by the
learned Tribunal in the case of the petitioner, and (ii) opinion dated 27.02.2019,
passed by the said learned Tribunal in the case of Kafia Begum, it is noted that
reference against them was made by the Electoral Registration Officer after
publication of the draft electoral roll of 1997. However, the case against Kafia
Begum was registered in the year 2011 and the case against the petitioner was
Page No.# 12/15

registered in 2013. Both the cases were registered before the same learned
Tribunal. However, no effort was made either by the petitioner or by the said
Kafia Begum to have both matters analogously decided.

32. Thus, without raising the said plea before the learned Tribunal
and before this Court in the writ petition, a new and false ground is being raised
without any basis. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the said plea is
repelled and rejected.

Plea that link certificate was proved:

33. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the
link certificate was proved by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to show that the author of the purported link
certificate was examined by the petitioner has witness to prove the certificate.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the
Government has assigned any duty to the President or Secretary of a Gaon
Panchayat to maintain citizen’s register or a register of families residing under
his jurisdiction.

34. This Court, in the case of Momtaj Begum v. Union of India, W.P.
(C) 2629/2023, decided on 17.05.2023: (2023) 0 Supreme (Gau) 513 , has held
that a “certificate” depicts the existence of a fact which is vouched upon by the
person issuing the certificate. In other words, the existing fact that may be
reflected in a “certificate” would have to be within the knowledge of the person
who issues the certificate, meaning thereby, either the person concerned is a
custodian of a public record from which the information can be derived or the
person concerned may have personal knowledge about the existence of the
Page No.# 13/15

fact.

35. This Court, in the case of Manowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa v.
Union of India, 2017 (2) GLT 143: (2017) 2 GLR 632 , has held that a certificate
issued by the Secretary of a Gaon Panchayat has got no statutory sanction,
rather such a certificate would be contrary to the mandate of the Assam
Panchayat Act, 1994 and Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of
National Identity Card) Rules, 2003, besides opposed to national interest. It
was further held that such a certificate would not partake the character of a
“public document” merely on account of counter-signing of the same by the
Block Development Officer. Accordingly, it was held that the contents as well as
the execution have to be proved by examining the person issuing the same. It
was held that such a “certificate’ partakes the character of a “private document”,
in which event the author of the document would have to come and testify to
prove the truthfulness of the contents of the said document.

36. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
show that there is any merit in the plea.

Whether the review petition is sustainable on any grounds:

37. In the case of Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttuswamy,
2021 STPL 1373 SC, the Supreme Court of India had held that a change in the
law or a subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

38. In this case, the subsequent opinion dated 27.02.2019, was
passed in F.T. Case No.4629/G/11 – State v. Kafia Begum, where the said
proceedee is not shown to have disclosed before the learned Tribunal that the
Page No.# 14/15

present petitioner is her own sister. Therefore, if on facts, both cases were
allowed to proceed without letting the learned Tribunal know that the petitioner
and Kafia Begum were sister, it would be a travesty of justice to entertain a
review petition where facts were suppressed in three forums, i.e. before (a)
Supreme Court of India, in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
24767/2018; (b) this Court in connection with W.P.(C) No. 2854/2016; (c)
proceedings of F.T. Case No. 5898/G/2013, arising out of Reference
No.3753/98/D GLP(B) and ERO Case No. 54-12/38, before the Learned Member,
Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, which was decided vide opinion dated
16.02.2016; and (d) F.T. Case No.4629/G/11, State v. Kafia Begum, decided vide
opinion dated 27.02.2019.

39. Therefore, this review petition fails on the aforesaid count.

40. Therefore, the Court is inclined to pass the following-

ORDER

a. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.

b. The Court refrains from imposing exemplary cost upon the petitioner.

c. The consequences of the opinion dated 16.02.2016, passed by the
learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, in F.T. Case
No.5898/G/2013 arising out of Reference No.3753/98/D/GLP(B) and
ERO Case No.54-12/38 would follow.

41. The Court is also inclined to pass the following directions:-

a. The Registry shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the
Page No.# 15/15

learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara at its following e-
mail address(es) –

[email protected]

[email protected]

b. The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC,
shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and
Political (B) Department, Govt. of Assam, for their record.

                                JUDGE                JUDGE




Comparing Assistant

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Momena Begum vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 13 July, 2026

Gauhati High Court