Gauhati HC Remands Mayamoti Biswas’s Foreigner Case For Fresh Hearing After Tribunal Left Surname Inquiry Unfinished

The petitioner challenged the Foreigners’ Tribunal’s opinion dated 21 December 2016, which declared her an illegal migrant.

The Tribunal record showed that notices had been refused because the persons named in the reference bore the surname “Nomosudra,” whereas the persons served claimed their surname was “Biswas.”

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent of Police (Border) to investigate whether they were the same persons, but proceeded with the case without receiving or pursuing that report.

The petitioner had not exhibited documents before the Tribunal.

The High Court had earlier deleted the other petitioners from the writ petition; the matter before it concerned Mayamoti Biswas alone.

In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may intervene in a Tribunal’s decision where the proceedings disclose a material procedural failure.

A Tribunal is legally obliged to ensure compliance with its own directions where the inquiry ordered may have a relevant bearing on the case.

On remand, the Tribunal was directed to decide the matter afresh while keeping in view paragraph 17(14) of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

The Tribunal had expressly directed an investigation to establish whether the persons identified as “Nomosudra” in the reference were the same persons who refused notice on the ground that their surname was “Biswas.”

Although the investigation report was not received, the Tribunal issued fresh notice and proceeded without pursuing its earlier direction.

Because the identity and surname inquiry could materially affect the case, the Tribunal was required to bring that inquiry to its conclusion.

The petitioner’s failure to exhibit documents did not displace the need to complete the Tribunal-ordered investigation.

The Tribunal was directed to complete the investigation it had ordered, hear the matter afresh, and decide it at the earliest, having regard to paragraph 17(14) of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Tribunal on or before 4 December 2026, with a certified copy of the order, and to be ready to furnish bail as directed; any bail granted would remain valid for 30 days from the date of the Tribunal’s opinion.

Parties were left to bear their own costs.