Gauhati HC Denies Migrant's Plea For Extension Of Time To Register Under Citizenship Act, Cites SC Ruling Upholding Validity Of S.6A
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday (January 09) dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman praying for a direction to extend the time limit for registering with FRRO, on the ground that the Court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, would not have power to extend time for the petitioner, to register herself before the concerned and/or jurisdictional registering authority.
The division bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund was hearing a writ petition filed by one Begum Zan against whom the Foreigners Tribunal gave the opinion dated June 29, 2020, that she has entered into Assam after January 01, 1966, but before March 25, 1971, and that the petitioner has failed to prove that she and her father had come to Assam before January 01, 1966.
It was provided in the opinion that the petitioner may register herself with the concerned FRRO in accordance with the provisions prescribed under section 6A (3) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 within thirty days from the date of the order.
The High Court framed the following question of law at the motion stage on maintainability:
Whether the petitioner, who is detected and held as foreigner who has migrated into India (Assam) between January 01, 1966 and March 24, 1971 (both inclusive), but has not registered herself with the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Barpeta (i.e. FRRO, Barpeta for short) within the prescribed time limit as per the Citizenship Rules, 2009, will be eligible for the benefit of citizenship?
The Court noted that the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 942: 2024 INSC 789, has held, in paragraph 218(d) to the effect that the immigrants who migrated between January 01, 1966 and Mach 24, 1971 (both inclusive) and who have been detected as foreigners but have not registered themselves with the registering authority within the prescribed time limit as per the Citizenship Rules, 2009 will no longer be eligible for the benefit of citizenship.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the observation that has been made in paragraph 218(d) of the aforesaid judgment is the minority view of the Single Judge, whereas the majority verdict does not subscribe to the minority view. The petitioner's Counsel cited a catena of cases of the Supreme Court to support his submission including Secundrabad Club v. C.I.T.-V, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660 and Satish Mondal v. The Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4650/2018.
The Court noted that the provision of Sub-Rule (2A) of Rule 19 is very specific in so far as the time limit for registration is concerned which reads as follows:
“(2A) A person who has been declared as a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal prior to 16th July, 2013 and has not been registered under sub-section (3) of Section 6A for the reason of non-receipt of order of the Foreigners Tribunal or refusal by the registering authority to register such person as a foreigner on account of delay may, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, or, from the date of publication of this notification, make an application for registration in Form XVIII to the registering authority of the district in which such person is ordinarily a resident:
Provided that the registering authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period to such further period as may be justified in each case but not exceeding one hundred eighty days.”
The Court further noted that none of the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner is an authority on the point that when the majority view is neither touched upon by the majority decision or that the majority decision is not contrary to the minority view, then also the directions contained in the minority decision cannot be treated as a binding precedent
“In other words, in none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are authority on the point that when majority decision is silent on a particular point, then the minority decision of the Supreme Court of India has to be disregarded or ignored,” the Court noted.
It was further observed by the Court that the Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the case of Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, that there was a conflict between the majority opinion and the minority opinion given in paragraph 218(d) thereof.
“Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the directions contained in paragraph 218(d) of the said case of Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is binding on this Court,” the Court said.
The Court remarked that by opinion dated June 29, 2020 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner was given option to register herself within 30 days from the date of the opinion in accordance with the provisions prescribed under section 6A(3) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
However, the Court said that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to register herself before the competent authority within the time allowed, or within the extended period as per proviso to Sub-Rule (2A) of Rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 (as amended).
“Therefore, this writ petition fails as this Court, being bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, would not have power to extend time for the petitioner, namely, Smt. Begum Zan to register herself before the concerned and/or jurisdictional registering authority in terms of directions given in the opinion dated 29.06.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.11th , Barpeta in (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1437/2017 [P.E. No. IM(D)T Case No. 2535/97, dated 19.12.97],” the Court said.
Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage.
It is to be noted that several media houses have reported that around 25,000 Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam are under threat of deportation by virtue of this judgment.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 2
Case Title: Begum Zan v. Union of India & 6 Ors.
Case No.: WP (C)/5903/2024