Ranjit Das vs Union Of India And 6 Ors.

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010202102019

2026:GAU-AS:7322
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6395/2019
RANJIT DAS
S/O. LT. KHUSINDRA DAS, VILL. GOBINDER KHUPA, P.S. KATIGORAH,
DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788805.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
DISPUR
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN (NRC)
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005.
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
P.O. SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR

Page No.# 2/6
ASSAM
PIN-788006.
6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B)
CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788003.
7:THE OFFICER INCHARGE
KATIGORAH POLICE STATION
CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788805
-BEFORE-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

Advocated for petitioners:
Ms. J. Paul

Advocate for Respondents :
Ms. A. Verma, SC, Home Deptt. & NRC
Mr. P. Sarma, GA, Assam,
Mr. N. Kalita (on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI)
Ms. J. Sarma, CGC.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 22.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes


JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Pranjal Das, j)

Page No.# 3/6
1. Heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home
Department and NRC; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam;
Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali,
learned Standing Counsel, ECI) and Ms. J. Sarma, CGC.
2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner namely, Ranjit Das has filed the instant writ
petition seeking interference with judgment and order/opinion dated
th
07.07.2018 passed by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal No.4 ,
th
Cachar at Silchar in F.T.4 /D/409/2015, whereby, the petitioner is the
proceeding has been declared a foreigner, who had illegally entered
India via Assam on or after 25.03.1971 from the Specified territory
under Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment Act, 1985).
3. The facts in brief are that under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners
Tribunal Order, 1964, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar at
Silchar, who is the Competent Authority made a reference seeking an
opinion as to whether the petitioner as proceedee is a foreign national
within the meaning of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946. The reference was
registered as the above mentioned F.T. case and notice was issued.
4. Upon being noticed, the petitioner as proceedee/opposite
party appeared and filed written statement along with some
photocopies of documents. However, as stated by the learned Tribunal,
the written statement was not accompanied by any affidavit. During
the proceeding, the petitioner adduced evidence on affidavit of only

Page No.# 4/6
herself as DW-1. She also exhibited a few documents. After the
completion of the proceeding, the learned Tribunal answered the
reference against the proceedee, holding him to be a foreigner
pertaining to the post 25.03.1971 stream.
5. Drawing attention to the relevant materials, Ms. J. Paul,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the
petitioner is 30.06.1966 and that that in the voters list of 1965 the
names of his grandmother, Sailo Bala Das, his father Khusindra Das
and his mother Renu Bala Das were enlisted at serial nos. 238, 239
and 240 respectively.
6. It is further pointed out that in the voters list of 1970 again,
the names of the aforementioned Sailo Bala Das, his father Khusindra
Das and his mother Renu Bala Das find mention at serial nos. 266, 267
and 269. In the voters list of 1989, the name of the petitioner Ranjit
Das figures at Sl. No.584 along with Khusindra Das (stated to be his
father) at Sl. No.582 and Renu Bala Das (stated to be his mother) at
Sl. No. 583. However the same document has not been exhibited.
Thus, it is contended that the petitioner, after being enlisted in the
1989 voters list voted for the first time therein.
7. Upon perusing the materials, we find that the voters list of
1970, where, the purported grandmother and parents of the petitioner
figure was applied for on 22.01.2019, which is after the date of the
impugned judgment dated 07.07.2018. Obviously, the same document
was not exhibited before the learned Tribunal.

Page No.# 5/6
8. From the records, we find that the voters list of 1965 was
exhibited as Exhibit-2 As already mentioned, the name of Khusindra
Das is one of the three persons figuring therein at Sl. No. 239 and the
petitioner claims and contends that the same Khusindra Das is his
father.
9. In the purported voters list of 1989, the name of the petitioner
Ranjit Das appears at Sl. No. 584 along with Khusindra Das at Sl. No.
582 and petitioner Ranjit Das is indicated as the son of Khusindra Das.
However, no such document was exhibited during the proceeding
before the learned Tribunal.
10. Apart from this purported voters list of 1989, which could have
been a link documentary evidence to support the case of the petitioner
- there is no other document to create the documentary linkage
between the petitioner and any of his ancestors, including his parents,
prior to 1971. Therefore, we come to the considered opinion that there
is no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 07.07.2018 passed by
the learned Tribunal holding that the petitioner as proceedee had failed
to discharge the burden and accordingly, the petitioner Ranjit Das was
declared a foreigner of the post 25.03.1971 stream.
11. Despite the aforesaid determination, we take note of the fact
that one of the alternative submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that in the event of the Court not finding sufficient merits
in the petitioner's case for interfering with the impugned order - he
may be given the option of seeking the benefit under the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019. The aforesaid submission was also not

Page No.# 6/6
seriously objected to by the learned counsels for the respondents.
12. Accordingly, in view of the above the writ petition is
dismissed ; however with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Appropriate Authority under the CAA and if such approach is done in
the manner prescribed, the same is to be considered in accordance
with law.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant