‘I came back next morning’: Gauhati High Court flags ‘porous’ India-Bangladesh border after deported man reappears

The bench was hearing the plea of one Raham Ali, who was declared a foreigner from Bangladesh, post March 25, 1971, by the Foreigner Tribunal’s order of 2010.

Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund noted that the petitioner has claimed to return to the country after being deported by the authorities. (AI-enhanced image)

‘Rehearing in guise of review petition’

• The bench observed that it was surprising that the petitioner, without being acquainted with the entire set of facts, had filed the earlier petition as well as a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
• Negligence and omission to obtain certified copies of the order sheet of the tribunal, before challenging the said order before this court and before the Supreme Court, by any stretch of imagination, would not constitute an exercise of due diligence.
• Therefore, this review cannot be entertained on such flimsy grounds that the order sheet was obtained nearly 16 years after the date of passing of the ex parte opinion in 2010.

• The Gauhati High Court held that the petitioner had sought a rehearing of the already decided matter in the guise of review, which is not permissible in review.
• The high court hoped that the competent authorities in the government and the state home and political (border) department are aware of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• It emphasised that it is high time that the officials concerned are sensitised on the said provision of law.

‘Total absence of any reliable explanation’

• The petitioner has raised a contention that he was declared a foreigner even though there were no proceedings against any member of his family.
• If this is the grievance of the petitioner, it is hoped that the police authority concerned would examine why only the petitioner was singled out as a foreigner in the absence of any member of his family being accused of being a foreigner.
• However, the lack of reference to other family members does not constitute a ground for review.
• There is a total absence of any reliable explanation of the delay in filing this review petition after a lapse of nine years.
• When the petitioner had remained absent and unrepresented before the Foreigners Tribunal on various dates, it is not open for him to urge that he was prejudiced only because the order sheet does not make a mention that the next date was fixed for evidence of the petitioner.
• None of the grounds mentioned by the petitioner is a good ground to entertain a review petition.
• There was no endeavour from the side of the petitioner to prove his Indian citizenship with cogent and reliable evidence.
• There is no worthwhile explanation for the delay at all stages, specifically from January 2017, the date of dismissal of the writ petition and July 2017, the date on which the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
• This review petition filed by Raham Ali is dismissed, declaring him to be a foreigner from Bangladesh, post March 25, 1971.

‘Plea and delays’

• A reference was made suspecting that the petitioner was a doubtful citizen and had got his name enrolled as a voter in the draft electoral roll of 1997 in Nagaon district.
• The said reference was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal in 2007, and later in 2010, it was held that the petitioner had failed to prove himself to be not a foreigner
• By an ex parte order, the tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreigner from Bangladesh of the post March 25, 1971.
• After a long delay of about five years, in October 2015, the petitioner filed a review petition in respect of the ex parte order of 2010 and also filed an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the plea.
• The explanation for not adducing evidence in the proceedings was not found acceptable, and thus, the said pleas were dismissed by order of December 2015. It was found that he was not present on this day as well.
• The present plea was filed in January 2026 to challenge the order of 2017 after a lapse of 9 years (or 3287 days).
• In this plea, it has been stated that he was arrested and taken to the border area by the Indian Border Force, but later on, he again returned from the area where he was sent by the police and in the morning, he returned to his place.

‘Tribunal’s order bad in law’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate R Choudhury argued that the said 2017 order suffers both in law and on facts and is bad in law and passed in ignorance of some facts, which were discovered by the petitioner after obtaining certified copies of the documents.
• Choudhury also mentioned that the order suffers from illegality as it was held that there was no endeavour from the side of the petitioner to prove his Indian citizenship by cogent and reliable evidence.
• It was also emphasised that the 2017 order failed to consider that the petitioner had prayed for review before the tribunal to set aside the said order and to allow him to adduce evidence.
• He further added that his client was declared a foreigner, although there were no proceedings against any member of his family.
• On the issue of delay in filing the plea, the counsel mentioned that the petitioner came to know for the first time that the tribunal never gave any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, and thus, the petitioner had suffered injustice.

‘Not maintainable after 9 years’

• On the contrary, the counsel for the tribunal and border matters has opposed the issuance of notice on this review petition on the ground of extraordinary delay and laches in filing this review petition.
• It was submitted that the review would not be maintainable after nine years, after the Supreme Court had dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.