‘Country suffers if illegal migrants defeat expulsion’: Gauhati High Court rejects woman’s plea after 2,804-day delay

The division bench noted that the petitioner could have sought free legal aid at any point during the seven-year period but failed to do so. (Image enhanced using AI)

The order added that, as notice was served to the son of the petitioner, who is an adult member of the family, it must be deemed that the petitioner had full knowledge of the fact that she had been declared to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory.

“It is not the case of the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor any person in her family was aware that an inquiry as to whether or not the petitioner was an illegal migrant from the specified territory was made against the petitioner by the concerned authorities,” the order stated

Foreigner tribunal declared foreigner

• The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the foreigners tribunal 1st, Nagaon, on January 29, 2018.
• The Tribunal found she had illegally entered India from Bangladesh after the cutoff date of March 25, 1971.
• The petition challenging this declaration was not filed until October 3, 2025—a delay of 7 years, 8 months, and 5 days (2,804 days).

Case of petitioner and state

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocates S K Chakma and D Ghosh argued that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and belongs to the indigenous Muslim community of Assam, having all the requisite documents.
• It was also submitted that the petitioner belongs to a very marginalised and financially weak background and lacked the financial resources to obtain certified copies of the impugned ex parte opinion or to engage a lawyer in time.
• They further submitted that due to extreme financial hardship, she could not approach the court within the prescribed time.
• On behalf of the petitioner, they tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in approaching this court within a reasonable time.
• Foriegn tribunal’s and advocate G Sarma argued that the explanation given is vague, and not supported by any documents or any other cogent and reliable material.

‘Financial hardship, lack of awareness ground can’t be accepted’

• From the date of opinion, the petitioner has filed this petition after 7 years, 8 months, 5 days (i.e., 2804 days).
• The said delay is sought to be explained merely by stating that the petitioner is poor and unable to manage the cost and expenditure of approaching this court, and she was unaware of the legal proceedings and their consequences.
• Such a vague statement cannot be accepted, as nothing prevented the petitioner from availing free legal aid, which she did not.
• The petitioner has stated that due to financial constraints, she could not apply for a certified copy earlier.

• It is noticed from the photocopy of the certified copy of the impugned opinion that the said photocopy discloses that the court’s rupees four only had been paid for the certified copy, and the court fee stamp paid is only Rs 60.
• By virtue of the long delay of over seven years, the petitioner is deemed to have accepted the ex parte opinion passed against her without any demur.
• Despite knowing such a serious inquiry regarding the petitioner, wherein she was accused of being an illegal migrant from the specified territory, the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding.
• Usually and/or in the normal course, the uniformed police personnel from the border branch of the concerned police station visit the house of the proceedee to serve notice and/or process for appearance.
• It would be hard to believe that no villager would come to know about police visiting any household in the village to serve process, and that none in the house or in the village would be bothered by the visit of police in a co-villager’s house.
• The legal aid counsel for the petitioner could not show which fundamental right of the petitioner would be violated if the ex parte opinion is not set aside.