Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2243/2026 of NUR ISLAM Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS on 3 May 2026
GAHC010080292026 2026:GAU-AS:6057 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2243/2026 NUR ISLAM S/O LATE CHEKAN ALI ALIAS SEKENDAR ALI, VILL- KANTAPUR, P.O.: HASHDOBA, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM. PIN- 783129 VERSUS THE
GAHC010080292026
2026:GAU-AS:6057
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2243/2026
NUR ISLAM
S/O LATE CHEKAN ALI ALIAS SEKENDAR ALI, VILL- HASHDOBA, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM. PIN- 783129
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NIRVACHAN BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-1
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-05
5:THE DISTRICT COMMSSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783101
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 78310
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Uddin, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Payeng, SC, NRC
: Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI
: Mr. M. Chetia, Government Advocate
: Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 04.05.2026
Heard Mr. J. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. I have also heard Ms. S. Katakey, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2; Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6; Mr. J. Payeng, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that in the voters list of 2017, the name of the Petitioner was marked with the letter “D” and thereupon the Petitioner has approached the concerned Respondent Authorities for removal of the tag “D” in his name from the voters list.
3. As the concerned Respondent Authorities had failed to do so, the Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction that the letter “D” tagged with the name of the Petitioner in the voters list be removed.
4. Whether a person is a “D” voter or not is a matter of factual determination and the appropriate forum to do the same is the concerned Foreigners Tribunal. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not have the competence to decide such a question which depends on the evidence that may be produced.
5. In the circumstances, this Court therefore directs the Respondent No.6 i.e., the Superintendent of Police (B), Goalpara to verify as to whether the Petitioner has already been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal and if upon verification, it is found that the Petitioner has not been referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, this Court further directs the said respondent No.6 to refer the case of the Petitioner as regards the mark “D” in the voters list in respect to 39 No. Jaleswar LAC to a competent Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara District for an appropriate adjudication as regards the status of the petitioner as “D” voter in the concerned voters list.
6. Reference be made within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such reference being made, the Petitioner may participate in such proceedings and establish his case.
7. If the case of the petitioner as per the records had already been referred to the relevant Foreigners Tribunal, there would be no requirement to make any further reference and the detailed information of the earlier reference be communicated to the petitioner.
8. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant