Declared ‘illegal’ in 1990: Why Gauhati High Court rejected man’s plea after 35 year delay
Assam Illegal migrant case: The Guahati High Court was hearing an appeal of a man stating that he and his six family members were not informed of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal (IMDT) order declaring them illegal immigrants in 1990.
5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 30, 2026 10:21 PM IST
Gauhati High Court news: The Guahati High Court said that there was a huge delay in filing of the petition which cannot be easily ignored. (Image generated using AI)
Assam illegal migrant case: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a petition of a man challenging an ex parte order passed by the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal (IMDT) in 1990, declaring him and six of his family members illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
A bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Anjan Moni Kalita was hearing an appeal of one Arab Ali stating that neither he nor his family members had received any notice of the IMDT proceedings and directed the authorities to take action in the matter in accordance with law.
“Since the tribunal declared the petitioner along with other family members as illegal migrants, the authorities are at liberty to take action against them as per law,” the January 29 Guahati High Court order said.
This petition is devoid of any merit on the ground of unexplained delay and latches in challenging the tribunal, said the Guahati Haigh Court. (Image enhanced using AI)
Findings
Since nobody appeared before the IMDT, the tribunal was compelled to pass the opinion ex parte.
Not keen to entertain the petition.
There is a huge delay in filing of the petition which cannot be easily ignored.
This petition is devoid of any merit on the ground of unexplained delay and latches in challenging the tribunal.
The explanation which has been given for such delay in the petition is vague and non-convincing.
Concluding that the petition was “devoid of merit” due to unexplained and inordinate delay, the Guahati High Court dismissed the petition.
The Guahati High Court also clarified that, the authorities are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner and his family members in accordance with law.
Advocates M U Ahmed and M M Rahman appearing for the petitioner in before the Guahati High Court argued that neither he nor his family members had received any notice of the IMDT proceedings.
The counsel submitted that Ali became aware of the case only after his arrest by the border police in 2019, following which he was detained at Tezpur Central Jail for over five years.
He was released in 2023 following the Supreme Court directions applicable during the Covid-19 pandemic, after completing three years, the counsel said before the Guahati High Court.
The counsel cited medical issues, financial hardship, and lack of proper legal advice, contending that the delay in approaching the high court was neither intentional nor deliberate.
Advocate P Sarmah and others, appeared for the state government and other respondents including the Centre, Election Commission of India opposing the plea before the Guahati High Court.
The state and border authorities maintained that notice under Section 10 of the IMDT Act, 1983, issued on July 6, 1988, had been duly served on the petitioner’s mother.
Section 10 of the Act mandates that once a reference (allegation of being an illegal migrant) is received, the tribunal must serve a notice to the accused person.
The accused is given 30 days to make representations and produce evidence in their defense.
His mother had acknowledged receipt by affixing her left thumb impression, the state submitted
The counsels for the respondents also contended that the tribunal granted repeated opportunities over nearly two-and-a-half years.
The state further submitted before the Guahati High Court that the petitioner remained inactive even after his release in 2023 and failed to offer any convincing explanation for the prolonged inaction in challenging the order.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
This petition is devoid of any merit on the ground of unexplained delay and latches in challenging the tribunal, said the Guahati Haigh Court. (Image enhanced using AI)
