Gauhati HC Quashes Illegal-Migrant Declaration Against Assam Woman, Sends Case Back After Tribunal Ignored Her Father’s Testimony

The petitioner challenged a Foreigners’ Tribunal opinion declaring her an illegal migrant.

She claimed Indian citizenship by birth and sought to establish her lineage through electoral-roll and NRC records, as well as testimony from herself, her projected father, and other witnesses.

The Tribunal rejected her case, principally finding that she had not proved that her projected father was the son of her projected grandfather.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider material testimony and documents.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the Tribunal’s opinion.

It applied the principle that a Tribunal’s decision may be set aside where it fails to consider material evidence on record; the Court cited no specific statutory provision or precedent for this principle.

The Tribunal accepted that the records established the projected grandfather’s identity but rejected the petitioner’s case because the link between him and her projected father was not proved.

However, the petitioner had examined her projected father and other witnesses, including officials and a Gaonburah, and had produced related documents.

The Tribunal’s failure to address that evidence meant its opinion had been reached perfunctorily and without considering the full record, thereby vitiating the decision.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s citizenship; it directed the Tribunal to reconsider the evidence.

It directed the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal by 04.12.2026 with a certified copy of the order and to be ready to furnish bail as directed by the Tribunal; any bail granted was to remain valid for 30 days from the date of the fresh opinion.

The petition was allowed to that extent, with each party bearing its own costs.