Niva Suklabaidya @ Niva Baidya vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors.

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010248052019

2026:GAU-AS:5463
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8106/2019
NIVA SUKLABAIDYA @ NIVA BAIDYA
W/O- LT. RAKHAL SUKLABAIDYA, R/O- KHANIKAR GAON, P.O. AND P.S.
SARUPATHAR, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. PIN- 785601
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.
ASSAM. PIN- 781006.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN ASOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110001.
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT

Page No.# 2/6
P.O. GOLAGHAT
DIST.- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM. PIN- 785621.
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
GOLAGHAT
P.O. GOLAGHAT
DIST.- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM. PIN- 785621

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

For the petitioner : Mr. M. Dutta.

For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Dutta, CGC,
: Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI
: Ms. A. Verma, SC, FT & NRC

For the State respondent : Mr. P. Sarmah, G.A.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 20.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 15.05.2026
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. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard,
Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing
counsel for the Election Commission of India, respondent no.3; Ms. A. Verma,

Page No.# 3/6
learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, representing
respondent nos.2, 4, and 6; 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, Niva Baidya (as appear in the reference), has
assailed the ex parte opinion dated 12.05.2010, passed by the learned Member,
Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, in Case No. FTG 409/07, by which she was
declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971.
3) The case projected by the petitioner is that she is an illiterate
lady and unaware of the legal intricacies involved in the proceeding. It was
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner
was present before the learned Tribunal on the dates fixed for evidence, but due
to absence of her learned counsel, the prosecution witnesses including the
Enquiry Officer were not cross-examined on her behalf. It was also submitted
that she had informed her learned counsel that she was suffering from
rheumatic pain, but though her learned counsel had assured her that he would
take steps, but no steps was taken and the petitioner was declared as a
foreigner by the impugned ex parte opinion.
4) It is the further projected case of the petitioner that by an
opinion dated 20.06.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal,
Jorhat in Case No. FTG 408/07 [corresponding to Police Enquiry No. 500/03],
declared her uncle, Biren Sukla Baidya to be not a foreigner. Her further case is
that she is the daughter of Late Mira Suklabaidya @ Mirendra, who was the son
of Late Umeshram Suklabaidya, who had entered into India from erstwhile East
Pakistan and was issued a Certificate of Registration dated 18.11.1956 under
Rule 10 of the Citizenship Rules, thereby registering him as an Indian citizen

Page No.# 4/6
under Section 5(1)(a)/(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
5) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and had submitted that the ex parte opinion was passed on
12.05.2010 and the present writ petition was filed on 01.10.2019, after an
unexplained delay and laches which disentitles her for any relief in this writ
petition as she had accepted her status as a foreigner for more than 9 years 4
months.
6) Ordinarily, the unexplained delay and laches in approaching this
Court would disentitle the petitioner from any relief in this writ petition. If one
needs an authority on the point, the cases of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley,
2024 INSC 314: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 351, Chairman/ Managing Director, U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal, (2020) 13 SCC 225 may be referred.
However, in this case, the petitioner projects that her grandfather was
registered as an Indian citizen and her projected uncle was also declared to be
not a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the Court
is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves a chance to prove her
contention.
7) Therefore, in light of the discussions above, without finding any
fault with the impugned ex parte opinion dated 12.05.2010, passed by the
learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, in Case No. FTG 409/07, the
matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal for a fresh decision by
giving the petitioner one opportunity to prove her case because under Section 9
of the Foreigners Act, 1946, burden is cast on the petitioner to prove her stand.
8) Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:-

Page No.# 5/6
a. To facilitate the appearance of the petitioner before the learned
Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, in connection with Case No. FTG
409/2007 within an outer period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of
the order, the impugned ex parte opinion dated 12.05.2010, passed by
the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, in Case No. FTG
409/07 is conditionally set aside.
b. The setting aside of the said ex parte opinion is on condition that the
petitioner shall appear before the learned Tribunal strictly within a
period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the order, failing which this
st
order would stand automatically recalled on and from the 31 day of
the order.
c. In the event the petitioner appears within the 30 (thirty) days’ time
allowed and produces a certified copy of this order and files her
evidence-on-affidavit and produces her other witnesses, the learned
Tribunal shall admit the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner
and other witnesses, and subject to the availability of time, either allow
the Govt. counsel to cross-examine the petitioner and other witnesses
produced by her and/or ask questions to the petitioner and other
witnesses under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
and/or at its discretion, fix another date or dates for cross-examination
of witnesses.
d. In the event the petitioner files any application for summoning of any
witness or to call for any document, that shall be considered by the
learned Tribunal in accordance with law.
9) As this order is conditional, it is specifically provided that in the

Page No.# 6/6
event the petitioner does not enter appearance within the time allowed and files
her evidence-on-affidavit, this order shall stand lapsed by efflux of time and the
impugned ex parte opinion dated 12.05.2010, passed by the learned Member,
Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, in Case No. FTG 409/07, shall stand revived and
restored to the file.
10) This writ petition stands conditionally allowed to the extent as
indicated above.
11) There shall be no order as to cost.
12) The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s records
expeditiously.

JUDGE JUDGE .
Munna
Kumar
Digitally signed by
Munna Kumar
Date: 2026.05.15
16:18:17 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant