WP(C)/5217/2019 of RINA DEY @ RINA RANI DEY Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. on 24 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 25-05-2026 (S.K Medhi, J)

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an Opinion dated 30/05/2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa at Tamulpur in F.T Case No. 351/BAKSA/2017, whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post-1971.

2. We have heard Shri. K. Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri. G. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt., and NRC for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 & 7; Shri. A.I Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent no. 6; and Shri. P. Sarma, learned State counsel for the respondent No.4.

3. Shri. Mira, the learned counsel for the petitioner, amongst other grounds, has submitted that there is an error apparent in the Opinion in as much as, the deposition of the DW4 Headmaster has not been discussed with regard to the school certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit 6.

4. It is submitted that the school certificate was issued on 28/05/2015, wherein it has been categorically stated regarding the lineage of the petitioner with her father. He has also submitted that the said certificate (Exhibit 6) was duly proved by the Headmaster as DW4. He has submitted that in paragraph-15 of the impugned Opinion, there is a specific finding that Exhibit 6 has not been proved.

5. Shri. G. Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the Home Deptt., and NRC Department, has fairly submitted that the aforesaid fact that the deposition of DW4 has not been taken into consideration appears to be correct. He however, submits that the findings of the Tribunal, so far as other evidence and documents are concerned appear to be in consonance with law.

6. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the school certificate would be one of the vital documents for consideration and determination of this case, which admittedly has not been considered in its proper perspective.

7. We are of the considered opinion that without even going into the other grounds of challenge, vis-à-vis the evidence and the documents exhibited, it clearly appears that the evidence of the Headmaster of the school deposed as DW4 has not been taken into consideration.

8. We have also noted that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 only and even the evidence of DW5 has not has not been considered. It is a different matter that the evidence adduced by DW4 and DW5 can still be discarded, which however is to be preceded by a discussion, which has to be reasonable.

10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider the depositions of the DW4 and DW5 and give a clear finding on those.

11. The matter accordingly stands remanded back to the learned Tribunal fixing the date as 12.06.2026, on which date, the petitioner would appear before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal would accordingly consider the matter and fix a date for passing of appropriate orders in terms of the observations made by us.

12. The interim protection granted to the petitioner by the order dated 30/09/2019 shall be in force till passing of final orders by the learned Tribunal.

13. Records be sent back immediately. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant