Guwahati, March 13: Gauhati High Court today chided Delhi for not providing “original” documents about the status of the Ulfa members who have been missing since Bhutan’s military operation against the militant group in late 2003.

The defence ministry had submitted a sealed envelope containing the list of Ulfa members handed over to India by the Bhutanese government after Operation All Clear.

However, a division bench comprising acting Chief Justice D. Biswas and Justice H.N. Sarma declined to take cognisance of the evidence on the ground that the documents were not “original” and did not meet the requirements of the court.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition by Shyamalee Gogoi, alias Jnanama Moran, seeking to know the whereabouts of her husband Punaram Dihingia, alias Prakash Gogoi.

Shyamalee’s petition claims that she, her husband and senior Ulfa functionaries like Benning Rabha, Robin Neog and Ashanta Baghphukan were taken captive in Bhutan on December 18, 2003, and handed over to the Indian army on December 24.

The division bench asked Delhi to submit the “original” list of Ulfa detainees by March 30. It also asked for a list of Ulfa members captured in Bhutan and handed over to Assam police by the army.

Ulfa says Delhi must “trace” Rabha, Neog and Baghphukan — all three are members of the outfit’s central committee — if it wants the derailed peace process to be back on track.

The militant group wants five more members out of jail before taking a decision on direct talks with the government.

The high court appointed senior counsel P.K. Goswami as amicus curiae in the case last year. Goswami immediately put Delhi in a bind by opposing the defence ministry’s contention that the list of “missing” Ulfa members must be withheld in the interest of state security.

The defence ministry’s counsel had cited Section 123 of the Evidence Act for seeking the “privilege”.

Goswami argued during the last hearing that withholding the list would be tantamount to denying justice in the case. He said the list was not a classified document, as claimed by the defence ministry.

Senior advocates Bijan Mahajan and Raju Pradhan are representing the petitioner.