Md Rustom Ali vs The Union Of India & Ors.

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

Heard Shri Z. Hammad,learned counsel for the petitioner.Also heard Ms. D. Borpujari, learned CGC, Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRC, Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned GA, Assam.

The present challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against an opinion dated 13.03.2025 passed by the nd learned Foreigners' Tribunal, 2 Morigaon in F.T. Case No. 1274/2012 whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post-1971 stream.

As per the facts projected, the petitioner had faced a proceeding under the Foreigners' Tribunal pursuant to a reference made in which he had adduced evidence to prove his citizenship. However, the learned Tribunalvide an opinion dated 31.08.2020 had answered the reference against the petitioner and in favour of the State. The said decision was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition instituted in this Court which was registered as WP(C)/5238/2020. This Court,vide order dated 26.06.2023 had remanded the matter to the learned Foreigners' Tribunal with a specific direction to examine the Voters' Lists of 1966 and 1970. Such direction was given as there was an apparent discrepancy with the name of the village in the two Voters' Lists.To be specific, while in the Voters' List of 1966 containing the name of the parents of the petitioner, the name of the village was written as Kupatimari, in the subsequent Voters' List of 1970 containing the name of the petitioner, thename of the village has been written as Kuratimari. The learned Tribunal, however, vide the impugned opinion dated 13.03.2025 had reiterated the decision and answered the reference which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding.

Shri Hammad, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the purpose of the remand made by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2023 was to examine the aspect regarding the discrepancy in the name of the village appearing in the Voters' Listsof 1966 and 1970 and the learned Tribunal do not appear to have applied mind on the said issue. He has however, submitted that in the present proceeding, pursuant to a direction of this Court dated 28.10.2025, the learned Standing Counsel, ECI had produced written instructions and has clarified that the name of the village was wrongly written as Kuratimari in place of Kupatimari.

To have more clarity in the matter, this Court,vide order dated 24.07.2026 had directed the ECI to file an affidavit to put the clarification on record. Accordingly, the ECI has filed an affidavit on 07.08.2026. On a perusal of the same, the ECI has clarified that there was a clerical error in issuing the certified copy on 31.12.2019 pertaining to the Voters' List of 1970.It has been stated that the name of the village should have been Kupatimari in place of Kuratimari. For ready reference, the relevant averments made in the affidavit are extracted herein below:

Shri Hammad, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that the materials on record would also show that the petitioner cannot be declared a foreigner under any stream. However, the said submission has been strenuously opposed by Shri Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRCby contending that there are major discrepancies including the age of the mother if the Voters' Listsof 1966 and 1985 are taken into consideration.As regards the documentary evidence in the form of Jamabandi, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the remark in the Jamabandi has been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and the findings arrived at are in accordance with law which would not require any intervention.

This Court has however found that the observations of the learned Tribunal that there were no cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence was based on the aspect that the name of the village in the Voters' Listsof 1970 and 1966 were different. The said discrepancy being clarified by the ECI by filing the affidavit as noted above, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of being declared a foreigner of the stream 1966 to 1971.

We are also of the opinion that though the petitioner has tried to bring in certain other documentary evidence, the observations made by the learned Tribunal on those materials are in accordance with law and would not require any intervention.

In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned opinion dated nd 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal, 2 Morigaon in F.T. Case No. 1274/2012stands modified to the extent that the declaration of the petitioner as foreigner should not be post 1971 and such declaration would be from the stream of 1966 to 1971. The petitioner would accordingly get the benefit of such declaration and is also required to take all necessary steps in accordance with law for getting the benefit.Upon the steps taken by the petitioner to get the benefit, the same is to be processed by the authorities expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Let the records be sent back forthwith.