RAJIA KHATUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been declared to be a foreigner (illegal Bangladeshi migrant) entering into Assam after the cut off date i.e. 25.3.1971, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Foreigners Tribunal. The particular reference was made by the State and on the basis of the said reference, initially, the case was registered under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal Act. The case was registered as IMDT Case No. 2524/2003 in the Court of illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Barpeta. After scraping of the IMDT Act by the Apex Court, the case was re-registered as FT (2nd) Case No. 63/2006. In the Court of Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Barpeta.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. I have also heard Mr. S.R. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.A. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent. I have also carefully examined the records of the Tribunal.

(3.) The order passed by the Tribunal declaring the petitioner to be a Bangladeshi illegal migrant, as usual, is an ex parte order and the blame is on the engaged counsel i.e. the respondent No. 5, as, if, the petitioner does not have any responsibility to prove her Indian citizenship, which she claims to be by birth. Once an advocate is engaged, the blame game on the Advocate is not a new phenomenon in cases pertaining to foreigners. No amount of leniency can be shown to such plea. Flaving regard to the magnitude of the foreigners problem in the State of Assam and law relating to burden of proof, as envisaged under Sec. 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, a foreigner cannot claim a better right than an Indian citizen litigant.