The Supreme Court in the case Rashida Begum @ Rashida Khatun v. Union of India observed and has recently directed the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup, Assam for considering afresh petition of a woman against whom an order alleging that she had entered Assam from East Pakistan after 25.03.1971, was being passed by the tribunal ex parte. The bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing the plea. In the present case, the said court was considering an order of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup, wherein a notice has been issued on 28.12.2007 to the appellant wherein it has been alleged before the court that she had entered Assam from the East Pakistan.
Therefore, the said appellant did not appear before the Tribunal and the same was being proceeded against ex parte. In the said case the tribunal relied upon the report of the Enquiry Officer wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the order of the Superintendent of Police he visited the house of the appellant, but being asked to produce documents and she being unable to do so. It has been held by the appellant to be a foreigner who had entered India after 25.03.1971. Thus, the appellant moved by the High court against the said order and the plea filed was dismissed as it has been held by the High Court that though the appellant had placed the reliance on certain documents, the same is not being open to the court wherein exercising the writ jurisdiction to sit in an appeal over the findings of fact which is being recorded by the Tribunal.
It has also been noted by the High Court that it has been failed by the appellant to appear in the enquiry and that since her citizenship status was being enquired into on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, the Tribunal arrived at the ultimate conclusion and the same could not be faulted. The counsel, Advocate Prateek Dhankhar appeared on behalf of the appellant relied upon following documents, which he stated and was not considered by the tribunal: (i) An extract from the Voters’ List of 1971 with regards of Abdul Rashid s/o Sonaullah, who being the appellant claims to be her father; (ii) A copy of the registered sale deed which is being executed by Abdul Rashid on 27.05.1976; and (iii) A copy of the school leaving certificate dated 3.07.1997 which descibed the appellant as a daughter of ‘Abdur’ Rashid. Accordingly, the order has been set aside by the court which is being passed by the Tribunal and the High Court for facilitating a fresh determination.
