Facts
The petitioner, Samiran Nessa, was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal Number-6, Barpeta, after the Electoral Registration Officer doubted her citizenship during a 1997 local verification where she failed to produce documentary evidence
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal, filed a written statement, and examined three witnesses, including herself and her projected father (DW-2)
Source reference: p. 3, 4On 05.12.2018, the Tribunal rendered an opinion declaring her a foreigner/illegal immigrant who entered Assam on or after 25.03.1971
Source reference: p. 2-3The petitioner was taken into custody on 20.12.2024
Source reference: p. 7She challenged this opinion via the present writ petition filed on 12.08.2025, approximately six years after the initial order
Source reference: p. 7Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and laches
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 122. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish her Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946
Source reference: p. 8 / para. 17Law Applied
Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving Indian citizenship squarely on the proceedee
Source reference: p. 8Certiorari jurisdiction is discretionary and may be refused if there is unexplained delay or laches, citing Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi and Jonali Das v. Union of India
Source reference: p. 9The procedure under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, is just and reasonable given the threat posed by illegal migration to the integrity of India, as established in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India
Source reference: p. 10-11Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide a cogent or acceptable explanation for the nearly seven-year delay in challenging the Tribunal's 2018 opinion
Source reference: p. 7, 11The Court observed that the petitioner’s written statement lacked material facts such as her date and place of birth, upbringing, or date of marriage
Source reference: p. 4Documents produced (Exhibits A-H) were found insufficient; specifically, the Gaon Panchayat certificates were not proved in accordance with law, and the Gaonburha’s testimony (DW-3) was discredited as he was not the official Government Gaonburha but merely the son of a bedridden one
Source reference: p. 5, 7The Court noted significant gaps in the linkage between the petitioner and her projected ancestors in the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 and held she failed to displace the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act
Source reference: p. 7-8Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative for the respondents, holding that the writ petition fails both on the grounds of inordinate delay and on merits
The court upheld the Tribunal’s opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner, noted the petitioner had been afforded due opportunity to contest the reference, and dismissed the Writ Petition
Source reference: p. 8, 12Original Court PDF
Samiran NessavsThe Union Of India And 5 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in