Registration of person arises only when he is illegal entrant: Gauhati High Court sets aside Foreigners Tribunal order

A Foreigners Tribunal order declaring an Indian woman to be a foreigner and ordering her deportation, has been set aside by the Gauhati High Court (Smt Puspa Rani Dhar v. The Union of India and Ors)..The Bench of Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Malasri Nandi took a dim view of the tribunal's order for refusing to accept proof which clearly clinched the case in petitioner's favour.Pertinently, while setting aside the order dated November 28, 2017, the Court rejected the State's submission that the petitioner should get herself registered with the Registering Authority even if she is found to be an Indian."Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for the State, however, submits that even if the petitioner is declared to be an Indian, she will be required to register herself with the Registering Authority. However, we do not agree with the said submission for the reason that registration of a person arises only when he/she is found to be an illegal entrant to this country from the specified territory between the period of 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 and who has been the ordinarily a resident in the State of Assam thereafter, and detected to be a foreigner......Accordingly, we are of the view that the question of registration of the petitioner who is otherwise Indian does not arise as she had been an Indian and not a foreigner at any point of time.".The Bench said that it failed to understand how the tribunal found a document issued by the Northeast Frontier Railway (NFR) ‘irrelevant’, given it had her husband’s name and joining date, along with her birth date and the names of their children. The Court said that the document proves her marriage to an Indian national. Further, the Bench also took note of a certificate issued by the Bengal Medical Union dated April 5, 1996, mentioning her father’s name as a member, voters lists going back to 1997 showing her name with that of her husband, as well as a partially legible land deed of 2008 in her name. .The Court, therefore, found that the tribunal rejected sufficient evidence of her Indian citizenship, adding that an earlier cross-examination did not disprove the fact that she is Indian.While setting aside the order, the Court directed that the lower court records be remitted to the concerned tribunal..[Read judgment]