JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Ms. R. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Sr. Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT). In the course of hearing on 13.03.2018, Ms. D. Kalita, learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the brief of the case was taken away from their chamber. This Court recorded that the case was of the year 2016 and the record was available. Petitioner was given liberty to make alternative arrangement with the observation that in the event alternative arrangement could not be made, Court might consider appointing Amicus Curiae. 2. On 27.03.2018 none had appeared for the petitioner on call though learned Special Counsel, FT was present. Referring to the order dated 13.03.2018, this Court requested Ms. R Jain, learned counsel who was present in Court to be the Amicus Curiae, which she accepted. 3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Tezpur at Sootea in Case No. FTC (6) 46/2015, State vs. Afuja Begum, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory i.e. present day Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. 4. It may be mentioned that petitioner had filed an application for review of the aforesaid order dated 04.05.2016 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 4/2016. By order dated 26.05.2016, the review petition was dismissed. 5. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 6. In the meanwhile, petitioner was taken into custody following her declaration as a foreign national. 7. This Court by order dated 08.12.2016 had issued notice while requisitioning the case record and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from India until further orders. 8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record, including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal. 9. Record discloses that Election Commission of India had ordered intensive revision of electoral rolls for the Biswanath Assembly Constituency in the State of Assam with reference to 01.01.1997 as the qualifying date. In this connection, a house to house enumeration was carried out during the period from 16.01.1997 to 15.04.1997. 9. Record discloses that Election Commission of India had ordered intensive revision of electoral rolls for the Biswanath Assembly Constituency in the State of Assam with reference to 01.01.1997 as the qualifying date. In this connection, a house to house enumeration was carried out during the period from 16.01.1997 to 15.04.1997. Though the name of the petitioner was included in the draft electoral roll of the said Constituency published on 24.07.1997, Electoral Registration Officer of the said Constituency expressed doubts about the citizenship status of the petitioner and got the matter verified by an on the spot local verification. On consideration of the report of such verification, Electoral Registration Officer recorded reasonable doubt that the petitioner was not a citizen of India. Thereafter, matter was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon and after completion of necessary formalities, reference was made to the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Nagaon under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant as defined under IMDT Act. Be it stated that under Section 3(1)(c) of the IMDT Act, an illegal migrant was defined as a foreigner who had unauthorisedly entered into India after 25.03.1971. 10. Record does not disclose as to what had happened thereafter but it appears that following declaration of the IMDT Act as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 fresh reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur and after creation of additional Tribunals, it was assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Tezpur at Sootea (Tribunal) where the reference was re-registered as Case No. FTC (6) 46/2015. 11. Petitioner filed her written statement on 10.09.2015. On going through the written statement as available in the record, we find that it was a pre-typed copy with certain blank portions filled up by hand. In the process the blank portions in paragraph 5 of the written statement were not filled up. As per the written statement, petitioner was born and brought up at village Siporia Sapori under Sootea Police Station in the then district of Darrang. Her father was Dole Mamud who was a voter of 1966 in respect of Sootea Constituency. In the verification column, petitioner identified herself as the wife of Md. Jabed Ali. 12. As per the written statement, petitioner was born and brought up at village Siporia Sapori under Sootea Police Station in the then district of Darrang. Her father was Dole Mamud who was a voter of 1966 in respect of Sootea Constituency. In the verification column, petitioner identified herself as the wife of Md. Jabed Ali. 12. This was all that the petitioner stated in her written statement which by any account was wholly inadequate to establish her identity as a citizen of India having regard to the mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 as explained by the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of Sarbanada Sonowal (supra). There was no disclosure of the date or year of birth of the petitioner and consequently her age at the time of filing the written statement was not known. Petitioner also did not mention the name of her mother and paternal grandparents, not to speak of brothers and sisters, if any. 12.1 From whatever was stated in the written statement what is discernible is that according to the petitioner, Dole Mamud was her father who had cast his vote in 1966 from Sootea Constituency, thereby he was a citizen of India. Being his daughter, petitioner was thus a citizen of India. But we find that no-where in the written statement there was any averment asserting that father was a citizen of India. It is a settled legal position that mere enrolment of name in the voters list and long stay in the country is no proof of citizenship, please see Bhanwaroo Khan vs. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 346 . Be that as it may, let us now examine whether petitioner could prove the above fact in issue by adducing cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. 13. In her deposition before the Tribunal as witness No. 1 on 19.09.2015 petitioner disclosed her age for the first time as 38 years which would mean that she was born sometime in the year 1977. She narrated more or less the same thing as stated in her written statement but significantly again did not disclose the name of her mother. 14. Petitioner filed three documents which were marked as exhibits 1, 2 & 3. Ext-1 was a photostat copy of certified copy extract of electoral roll of Sootea Constituency for the year 1966 where the sole voter was Dole Mahmud, son of Tamez. 15. 14. Petitioner filed three documents which were marked as exhibits 1, 2 & 3. Ext-1 was a photostat copy of certified copy extract of electoral roll of Sootea Constituency for the year 1966 where the sole voter was Dole Mahmud, son of Tamez. 15. Ext-2 is a certificate dated 30.06.2015 issued by the Secretary of No. 2 Sootea Gaon Panchayat certifying that Afuja Begum was the daughter of Dole Mahmud and Sairon Nessa of Katarati village and that she was aged about 35 years. It was certified that she had married Jabed Ali of Bakarapatta village in 1995. It was also mentioned that the said certificate was issued on the basis of the evidence placed before the Secretary. 16. One Sujit Kr. Sapkota had deposed before the Tribunal as witness No. 2 on be-half of the petitioner. While he stated that he had issued Ext-2 certificate as the Secretary of No. 2 Sootea Gaon Panchayat, he however clarified that the said certificate was issued on the basis of the certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah. On the one hand, he stated that he knew the petitioner and her father personally who were staying in his village since before his birth, on the other hand, in his cross examination, he stated that he had issued the said certificate as per statement of petitioner's brother and had put the age of the petitioner in the certificate as per statement of the brothers. Brother had applied for the certificate and he received the same. He also stated that he had not brought any official record to prove the certificate. He admitted that there was no issue number in the certificate and that he had not issued the said certificate officially and also that he did not make any entry in the office register regarding issuance of such certificate. The Gaonburah's certificate on the basis of which Ext.2 was issued was also not brought before the Tribunal by DW-2. 17. Therefore, on the basis of such unsatisfactory evidence tendered by DW-2 it cannot be said that Ext-2 or the contents thereof stood proved. The Gaonburah's certificate on the basis of which Ext.2 was issued was also not brought before the Tribunal by DW-2. 17. Therefore, on the basis of such unsatisfactory evidence tendered by DW-2 it cannot be said that Ext-2 or the contents thereof stood proved. On the one hand, DW-2 stated that he had issued Ext.2 certificate on the basis of certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah, on the other hand, he stated that he had issued the said certificate on being applied for by the brother of the petitioner without disclosing the particulars of the brother. At this stage, we may mention that neither in her written statement nor in her evidence petitioner stated that she had any brother or sister. That apart, the candid admission by DW-2 that Ext.2 was not issued officially by him on the basis of any official record casts serious aspersions on the credibility of Ext.2. Furthermore, belated issuance of the certificate would also cloud the bona fides of such certificate. While it was mentioned in the certificate that it was based on the evidence placed before the certifying authority, no such evidence were produced by the certifying authority before the Tribunal. Therefore, Ext.2 cannot be accepted as a legally valid piece of evidence. 18. Ext.3 is a certificate dated 06.05.2015 issued by the Gaonburah of Siporia village certifying that Afruja Begum was the daughter of Late Dole Mamud who was a voter in 1966 in respect of Biswanath Constituency. In addition to the belated issuance of such certificate, the Gaonburah did not depose before the Tribunal to prove Ext.3 as well as the contents thereof. Therefore, Ext.3 was not proved. That apart, we also notice that the State Emblem of India was embossed at the top of the certificate issued by the Gaonburah. Under Schedule 1 of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007 framed under Section 11 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act. 2005, a Gaonburah is not an authorized authority to use the State Emblem in a certificate issued by him. Rule 10 clearly provides that no person other than those authorized shall use the State Emblem in any manner. Such unauthorized use of the State Emblem would render Ext-3 inadmissible in evidence. 2005, a Gaonburah is not an authorized authority to use the State Emblem in a certificate issued by him. Rule 10 clearly provides that no person other than those authorized shall use the State Emblem in any manner. Such unauthorized use of the State Emblem would render Ext-3 inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the State Emblem of India embossed in any official document has to conform to the design as set out in Appendix I or Appendix II to the aforesaid Act The motto "Satyameva Jayate" written in Devanagri script below the profile of the Lion Capital is part of the State Emblem of India. In both Appendix I and Appendix II, the motto "Satyameva Jayate" is written in bold and straight Devanagri Script and not in italics. In Ext-3, the motto "Satyameva Jayate" is in italics, which is a clear give away that it is not genuine, besides being inadmissible. 19. If these two documents are excluded from consideration there is nothing on record to show or establish linkage between the petitioner and Dole Mahmud whom she claimed to be her father and a citizen of India. 20. In so far the review petition is concerned, we find that petitioner had relied upon one school certificate dated 06.05.2016 issued by the Head Master of Mirihola Primary School. This certificate also carries the State Emblem of India. For the reasons mentioned in respect of Ext.3, this document would also be inadmissible in evidence. That apart, as per this certificate petitioner had left the said School on 31.12.1986 after passing Class-1 in second division. This certificate was issued 30 years after the petitioner had left school which casts serious aspersions on the bona fides of the certificate. This certificate says that as per school register, petitioner was born on 06.02.1978. Besides being inadmissible in evidence, what has also to be noted is that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supl) SCC 604, date of birth recorded in school certificate or school register would have no evidentiary value unless the person who furnished the information regarding the date of birth or the parents are examined; besides the author of the certificate would have to prove the certificate on the basis of the school register. In the absence of any connecting evidence such a certificate or school register would have no probative value. Finally, as per this certificate, petitioner secured second division in Class-I. It is admitted at the Bar and it is common knowledge that in India no primary school grades pupils in Class-I in first division or second division which itself is indicative that this document is not genuine. 21. Net result of the above discussion is that petitioner had failed to prove by adducing any evidence, admissible or otherwise, to prove her linkage with Dole Mahmud whom she claimed to be her father relatable to be a period prior to 25.03.1971 which is the cutoff date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended. 22. Consequently, we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 23. Before parting with the record, we place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae who shall be paid her due fees by the Assam State Legal Services Authority as per the schedule of fees. 24. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned Foreigners' Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (B) for doing the needful. Copies of this order may also be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Coordinator, NRC.