GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 24:

1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

2. The petitioner in this case is Jubbar Ali @ Abdul Jubbar who has filed his application, challenging the opinion dated 06-12-2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon no. 2, Abhayapuri in connection with BNGN/FT-2/APR/124/2016 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was termed to be a foreigner/ illegal migrant of post 25-03-1971 stream.

3. It is submitted that on receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the petitioner filed his written reply with substantiating documents and contested the proceeding. He also adduced his evidence-in -affidavit as DW-1. It is contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The Tribunal took note of negligible discrepancies with respect to the names and ages of the petitioner's father and grandfather. The Tribunal has ignored the fact that the names and ages of the electors are recorded by the electoral authority and incorrect recording of names and ages of electors are common. In addition, it is to be noted that the voters lists exhibited by the petitioner were translated copies from vernacular and thus are prone to incorrect recording of names and spellings and so the Tribunal in an apathetic manner discarded the evidence of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has quoted Section 3 (1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as amended, which reads as follows:

"a) on or after 26th day of January, 1950 but before 1st day of July, 1987;

b) on or after 1st day of July, 1987 but before the commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and either of whose parents is citizen of India at the time of his birth;

c) on or after the Citizenship (amendment) Act, 2003 1) both of his parents are citizen of India ii) one of whose parents is a citizen of India and other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his birth shall be citizen of India by birth."

5. It has been contended that justice has been denied to him as he has been declared to be a foreign national, despite the fact that he was born in India. The remaining part of the petitioner's argument for the sake of brevity shall be discussed at the appropriate stage.

6. Per contra, it is contended by Mr. G. Sharma, learned counsel for the FT matters that the petitioner submitted two voters lists of 1966 and 1970 and thereafter the voters list of 1985 has been submitted. The gap between 1970 and 1985 is 15 years, which cannot be stretched to the extent to establish the linkage of the petitioner with his father and grandfather.

7. It is contended by learned counsel Mr. G.Sharma that there are too many discrepancies in the names as well as in the ages of the petitioner's projected father and grandfather in most of the voters list relied upon by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner's mother's name figures for the first time in the voter's list of 1985 despite the fact that his father's name appears in the voters' lists of 1966 and 1970. The discrepancies in the age of Shukiton Nessa in different voters list cannot be ignored. If the discrepancies are taken into consideration, the petitioner's case has no leg to stand. The remaining part of the argument on behalf of the respondent authorities will be discussed at the appropriate stage.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WnSNNovVTv4MNv2SYwMJxnxGmWBK4EA7hZbQbAEUAj5h&caseno=WP(C)/1552/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010041822019&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.