Marzina Begum @ Marzina Khatun vs Union Of India And 5 Ors.

N. Kotiswar Singh, J

Heard Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury,

learned ASGI for respondent No.1; Ms. Devi for respondent No.5 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel,

ECI for respondent No.2; Ms. A. Verma, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for respondent Nos.3 & 6 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Govt.

Advocate, Assam for respondent No.4.

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte order dated 19.08.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur(1st), Sonitpur,

Assam in F.T. Case No.1514/2012 [Police Enquiry No.690/2010] by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner received notice from the learned Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner herself

could not appear before the Tribunal but her father had filed an application before the learned Foreigners Tribunal seeking time for appearance which

was allowed. Unfortunately, on the next date fixed, the petitioner could not appear again as she remained ill and subsequently, on the date fixed the

petitioner also could not appear before the Tribunal as she had to leave the station to collect relevant documents. Further, on the next date fixed again,

the petitioner could not appear because of the flood in the locality. Only on two other occasions, the petitioner could not appear before the Tribunal

and as such, it has been submitted that there was no deliberate negligence or intention to avoid the process of law by the petitioner. Accordingly, it has

been submitted that the absence was due to the reasons which was beyond her control.

We have perused the orders passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A to the writ petition.

From the above, it appears that there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal as her absence was

due to her illness, flood and also in procuring the documents in support of her claim.

Citizenship is one of the most important rights of a person in today’s world. It is the key to enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by law of the

land. It is through citizenship that a person can enjoy and enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights conferred by the Constitution and other

statutes, without which a person cannot lead a meaningful life with dignity. A person stripped of citizenship would be rendered a stateless person, if

any other country refuses to accept him or her as its citizen. Such is the overarching significance and importance of citizenship to a person. Therefore,

any such proceeding which hasthe potential of depriving citizenship ought to be accordingly, examined from that perspective also. In a normal

proceeding before a court of law, in spite of any adverse finding, the person will continue to enjoy the rights as a citizen. Though a proceeding under

the Foreigners’ Tribunal, is merely quasi-judicial in nature, yet an adverse opinion by the Tribunal that the proceedee is a foreigner almost seals the

fate of the proceedee as far as the issue of citizenship is concerned, as the authorities are expected to declare such a person a foreigner in terms of

the opinion of the Tribunal and he would be liable to be detained and deported. Thus, ordinarily, such an opinion of the Tribunal, in our view, ought to

be given after analyzing the evidence that may be produced by the proceedee and not by way of default as has been done in the present case.

Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner may be afforded another opportunity to prove her case. More so, when the learned

counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court to a number of documents including the birth certificate, the voters list of 1965

showing the name of one Nayeb Ali who the petitioner claims as her grandfather, voters list of 1970 where the name of said Nayeb Alia again finds

place, the voters list of 1975 showing the name of her grandfather Nayeb Ali, voters list of 1985 where the name of her father Kubbat as the son of

Nayeb appears and other subsequent voters lists have been annexed along with other documents.

In that view of the matter, we allow this petition by remanding the matter to the learned Foreigners Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned ex-parte order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Sonitpur, Assam in

F.T. Case No. 1514/2012 [Police Enquiry No. 690/2010].

The petitioner will appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Sonitpur on or before 08.02.2022 and file her written statement and

the relevant documents and adduce evidence without fail in support of her claim that she is an Indian citizen, not a foreigner. Thereafter, the learned

Tribunal will pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner.

Since the citizenship of the petitioner is under cloud, she will appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur within 15 (fifteen) days

and furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority

whereafter she shall be allowed to remain on bail. On such appearance, the Superintendent of Police (Border) Sonitpur may obtain necessary

information and documentation as required under the rules from the petitioner for securing her presence and also shall take steps for capturing the

finger prints and biometrics of the iris of the petitioner, if so advised.

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sonitpur District without giving details of the place of destination and her place of stay to the

Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur.

With the above observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.