‘Grandfather was Indian citizen’: Gauhati High Court gives fresh chance to woman declared foreigner 16 years ago
The Gauhati High Court was hearing the plea filed by a woman who was declared a foreigner in 2010 by the Foreigners Tribunal.
The Gauhati High Court noted that the woman projected that her grandfather was registered as an Indian citizen in 1956. (AI-generated image) The Gauhati High Court recently gave a fresh chance to a woman who was declared a foreigner nearly 16 years ago, observing that despite the delay in approaching the court, she deserved an opportunity to prove her citizenship since her grandfather had been registered as an Indian citizen in 1956.
Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan were hearing the plea filed by Niva Suklabaidya, challenging the Foreigners Tribunal’s ex parte opinion dated May 12, 2010, by which she was declared a foreigner of the post-March 25, 1971 stream.
“In this case, the petitioner projects that her grandfather was registered as an Indian citizen, and her projected uncle was also declared not to be a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves a chance to prove her contention,” the May 15 order read.
Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan directed that the matter be remanded back to the tribunal for a fresh decision by giving the petitioner one opportunity to prove her case.
‘Burden on petitioner’
- The high court directed that the matter be remanded back to the said tribunal for a fresh decision by giving the petitioner one opportunity to prove her case because the burden is cast on the petitioner to prove her stand.
- The court mentioned that the setting aside of the said ex parte opinion is on condition that the petitioner should appear before the tribunal strictly within a period of 30 days.
- The court also mentioned that if she fails to do the same, this order would stand automatically recalled on the 31st day of the order.
- The court further clarified that in the event the petitioner does not enter an appearance within the time allowed, this order should stand lapsed by efflux of time and the said ex parte opinion should stand revived and restored to the file.
‘I am illiterate’
The petitioner claimed that she is an illiterate lady and is unaware of the legal intricacies involved in the proceeding. It was submitted that though the petitioner was present before the tribunal on the dates fixed for evidence, due to the absence of her counsel, the prosecution witnesses, including the enquiry officer, were not cross-examined on her behalf.
It was also submitted that she had informed her counsel that she was suffering from rheumatic pain, but although her counsel had assured her that he would take steps, no steps were taken, and she was declared a foreigner by the said ex parte opinion.
She claimed that the Foreigners Tribunal had declared her uncle, Biren Sukla Baidya, “not a foreigner” in 2017.
Her further case is that she is the daughter of late Mira Suklabaidya, who was the son of late Umeshram Suklabaidya, who had entered India from the erstwhile East Pakistan and was issued a certificate of registration dated November 18, 1956, thereby registering him as an Indian citizen.
Arguments
Central government counsel A K Dutta opposed the contention of the petitioner and had submitted that the ex parte opinion was passed on May 12, 2010, and the present petition was filed on October 1, 2019, after an unexplained delay and laches.
It was added that this disentitled her from seeking any relief in the petition, as she had accepted her status as a foreigner for more than nine years and four months.
The petitioner was represented by advocate M Dutta, who argued that due to the absence of her client’s former counsel, the prosecution witnesses, including the enquiry officer, were not cross-examined on her behalf.
Share
