Md Ahmed Ali @ Ahamad vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors.

Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010305112019

2026:GAU-AS:16523
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/9539/2019
MD AHMED ALI @ AHAMAD
S/O LATE JUNAB ALI @ JONAB ALI @ JANAB ALI, R/O VILL-BHOJKHOWA
CHAPORI (RAJBHARAL), P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
P.O.-TEZPUR
DIST-SONITPUR

Page No.# 2/8
ASSAM
PIN-784001
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
SONITPUR
P.O.-TEZPUR
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-78400
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. F A HASSAN,MD. I HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
For the petitioner : Mr. I. Hussain, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. I. Borthakur, CGC.
: Ms. A. Verma, SC, FT & Border.
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. GA.
: Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 20.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes


JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J.)
Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

Page No.# 3/8
heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned
standing counsel for FT and Border matters, for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 7; Mr.
A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India,
representing respondent no. 3; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt.
Advocate for respondent no. 5.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Ahmed Ali @ Ahamad has assailed the
opinion dated 12.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal,
st
Tezpur (1 ), Sonitpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 118/2016, arising out of Police
Enquiry No. 222/2016, by which he was declared to be a foreigner who had
illegally entered India from specified territory of Bangladesh on or after
25.03.1971 without valid documents.
3) Assailing the impugned opinion, the learned counsel for the
petitioner had referred to the pleadings and evidence on record and had
submitted that the petitioner had filed his written statement and denied that he
was a foreigner and asserted that he was a citizen of India. He had also stated
that his parents, Late Junab Ali @ Jonab Ali @ Janab Ali @ Md. Junabali and
Late Hurutun Nessa @ Hartam Nessa were the original residents of village-
Rajbharal, P.S. Tezpur, Dist. Darrang, now Dist. Sonitpur and their names
appeared in the voter list of 1966, 1971 and 1977 of village- Rajbharal, under
73 Tezpur LAC. The petitioner had studied upto Class-V in the year 1978 at
Bhojkhowa Shirajia Aided M.E. Madrassa, Bhojkhowa, Tezpur. The name of the
petitioner and his wife, Musstt. Rahima’s name appeared in the voter list of
1997 at village- Rajbharal and as a resident of the said village, the petitioner
has obtained a certificate from the Gaonburah of his village. It was submitted
that there were some discrepancies in the names of his father, mother and his

Page No.# 4/8
own name, as well as in respect of their age, which was duly explained in his
written statement. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in the case of Abdul Matali @ Mataleb v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 (2)
GLT 617. It was submitted that as per the notice issued to the petitioner, he was
accused of illegally entering into India between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 and
therefore, the learned Tribunal could not have declared the petitioner as a
foreigner of post 25.03.1971. Thus, it was submitted that as the petitioner had
duly proved his pleadings, the impugned opinion was liable to be interfered
with.
4) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has made her submissions to support the impugned opinion.
5) Considered the submissions and also perused the Tribunal’s
records that was called for. Also considered the case cited at the Bar.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner had in a concise manner,
referred to the contents of the written statement. The petitioner, in his
evidence-on-affidavit, filed as DW-1 had reiterated the statements made in his
written statement and had exhibited the following documents:-
a. Certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.1).
b. Certified copy of voter list of 1971 (Ext.2).
c. Certified copy of voter list of 1977 (Ext.3).
d. Certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.4).
e. School certificate no. 83/21 dated 23.06.1983, issued by the Headmaster of
Bhojkhowa Shirajia Aided M.E. Madrassa, Bhojkhowa, Tezpur (Ext.5)
f. Certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.6).
g. Gaonburah’s Certificate no. 886 of village- Rajbharal (Ext.7).

7) The learned Tribunal in the impugned opinion, had discussed
the pleadings and evidence tendered by all the three witnesses examined by the
petitioner.

Page No.# 5/8
8) It may be mentioned that in view of the order of remand
proposed to be passed, the Court has refrained from discussing the pleadings
and evidence and analysis of the impugned opinion on merit.
9) On a perusal of the Tribunal’s records that was called for, it is
noticed thatthe petitioner was served with a notice/ summons specifically
alleging that he had illegally entered into India between 01.01.1966 and
25.03.1971. The said notice is available at page 32 of the said record. In the
said context, it may be mentioned that this Court, in the case of Rukia Begum
Barbhuiya @ Rukia Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 (4) GLT 1208: (2023)
0 Supreme(Gau) 568, had elaborately dealt with the matter. It was held by
referring to the provision of Paragraph 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order,
1964 and Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, had held to the effect that
reference before the Foreigners Tribunal can only be as to whether a person is
or is not a foreigner within the meaning of Foreigners Act, 1946. It was
observed that Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 defines foreigner to
mean a person who is not a citizen of India. The Court had also elaborately
considered the provision of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which is a
special provision for the State of Assam and it was observed that if a person is a
foreigner who has entered into India (Assam) between 01.01.1966 and
25.03.1971, the said person has to register himself with the Foreigners
Registration Office, which has consequences attached to such registration.
However, in case a person had entered into the State of Assam after
25.03.1971, such person(s) are to be declared as foreigners. Paragraph nos. 12,
13 and 21 thereof is quoted below: -
12 . A reading of the provisions of Section 6 A makes it explicit that it is a
special provision as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord and the
core provisions of Section 6 A are that a person who may have entered the State

Page No.# 6/8
of Assam from the specified territory prior to 01.01.1966 shall be deemed to be a
st
citizen of India from the 1 day of January, 1966. The further provision is that such
persons who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory after
01.01.1966, but before 25.03.1971 from the specified territory, and has been
detected to be a foreigner, shall register himself with the Foreigners Registering
Authority of the district concerned and upon having been registered shall be
debarred of any voting rights for a period of ten years, but otherwise retaining all
such other rights that a citizen of India may be bestowed with under the
provisions and further that upon expiry of the period of ten years, even the voting
rights would be restored back. In case of persons, who had entered the State of
Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971, such persons are to be
declared as foreigners.

13 . In view of the provisions of Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act 1955,
Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 would now have to be
understood that once a reference is made, the reference would be whether the
person concerned is or is not a foreigner, meaning thereby, whether the person
concerned is a foreigner, who had entered the Staten of Assam from the specified
territory on or after 25.03.1971 or he is a person who belongs to any of the other
categories i.e., a person who entered the State of Assam from the specified
territory before 01.01.1966 or between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971. No other
meaning can be attributed to the reference under Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners
Tribunal Order 1964 i.e. whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the
meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946. We further take note that even if a reference
is made by setting up a question whether the person had entered the State of
Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, the
reference would have to be understood to be a reference under Clause 2(1) of the
Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 i.e., as to whether he is a foreigner or not. If the
reference is worded whether the person concerned, is a person who had entered
the State of Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and
25.03.1971, in order to arrive at any such conclusion that the reference itself is
faulty inasmuchas, the decision of the Tribunal upon the materials on record would
be that the person concerned had entered the State of Assam from the specified
territory on or after 25.03.1971, in such circumstance, the only situation that can
be envisaged is that the Tribunal first arrives at a conclusion of its own that the
person concerned had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on
or after 25.03.1971, meaning thereby that the reference itself had been answered
by the Tribunal. After having answered the reference, it would be an inconceivable
situation that merely because the reference is worded whether the person had

Page No.# 7/8
entered the State of Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and
25.03.1971 it has to be referred back to the referral authority to make a fair
reference now putting up a question whether the person concerned had entered
the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971. In such situation, as the matter would
have to be referred back only after a final decision has been arrived at and now if
the reference is again made with a corrected expression in the questions framed,
the same may lead to further complications that the subsequent reference would
be barred by the principles of resjudicatainasmuchasit would be a subsequent
reference on the same issue between the same set of parties where an earlier
decision had already been arrived at. It is noticed that in Falani Bibi (supra) the
aforesaid aspect of the further implication of a corrected reference being again
made had not been gone into and from such point of view, it can be said that the
view taken therein would be per in curium of the further consequences of a fresh
reference being made.
*
21 . We further add that going by the statutory provisions of Clause 2(1) of
the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 any reference would have to be understood to
be a reference to the Tribunal on the question whether the person so referred is a
foreigner or not within the meaning of Foreigners Act 1946, where again foreigner
is given the meaning of a person who is not a citizen and again where a citizen is
defined under the Citizenship Act 1955.

10) Therefore, following the ratio of the case of Rukia Begum
Barbhuiya @ Rukia Begum (supra), the Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner deserves one more opportunity to prove his citizenship. To enable
the petitioner to avail such opportunity, the Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned opinion dated 12.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners
st
Tribunal, Tezpur (1 ), Sonitpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 118/2016, arising out of
Police Enquiry No. 222/2016.
11) The petitioner, who is duly represented by his learned counsel, is
directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the outer limit of
04.12.2026 without requirement of service of any fresh notice of appearance,
and the petitioner by producing a certified copy of this order, shall also file

Page No.# 8/8
additional evidence-on-affidavit, if so advised to prove his citizenship and to
prove that he is not a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. In the event the
petitioner produces any additional material, the learned Tribunal shall pass a
fresh opinion in accordance with law.
12) It is further provided that on his appearance before the learned
Tribunal, the petitioner shall apply for bail, which shall be considered by the
learned Tribunal in accordance with law. The said bail shall remain valid for a
period of 30 (thirty) days beyond the date when a fresh opinion is passed.
13) It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear within the
time allowed, it would be permissible for the petitioner to treat the petitioner as
absent on call and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law, without being
influenced by this order.
14) It is also clarified at the cost of repetition that the Court has not
examined the impugned opinion on merit.
15) The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s record along with a
copy of this order as to make it a part of record by the said learned Tribunal.
16) The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above,
with remand of the matter back to the said learned Tribunal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by Champak
Rajbongshi
Date: 2026.11.11 16:59:51 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary