The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies upon the individual under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The court emphasized the threat of large-scale infiltration from Bangladesh, the demographic impact, and the need for stricter measures to address illegal migration.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been declared as foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal. This writ proceeding makes shocking revelations as to how a foreign national (Bangladeshi national) taking recourse to falsity, forgery and manipulation has been living in Assam, India for years together. He has not only become a voter, but has also obtained passport at a time when the proceeding before the Tribunal was still pending, because of laxity and indifferent attitude on the part of the authorities. Taking advantage of long delay in disposal of the proceeding before the Tribunal and 'go as you like' kind of approach on the part of the authorities, the brother of the petitioner and his family members numbering 8, who were also involved in the proceeding have already done the act of vanishing way back in 1999.

2. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was born in 1948 in the village called Samarali under police station Murajhar in the district of Nagaon. According to him his father Late Makaram Ali was the permanent resident of the said village. It is his further case that he became a voter in 1970 and his name was included in the voter list of 1970 and all subsequent voter lists published thereafter. Further case of the petitioner is that he entered into the marital tie in the year 1969 with one Mustt. Subura Khatun @ Subu Khatun, daughter of Late Safar Ali of the same village. According to the petitioner, he is holder of ration card bearing Registration No. N(E) 27/1973-74 issued on 10.9.1973. The petitioner has annexed the photocopy of the first and the second page of the purported ration card depicting the name Abdul Hasim and the ration card number is 1234. The petitioner has also annexed the relevant pages of the passport obtained by him on 31.7.2006, which he had applied in the year 2005, when the proceeding before the Tribunal was still pending.

3. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that when he received notice in connection with F.T. Case No. 6/2006 from the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, he contacted an advocate and handed over all the relevant documents for taking necessary steps in the matter. Written statement was filed on 15.11.2006 and the Advocate concerned assured the petitioner that all necessary steps would be taken and that since the petitioner is a citizen of India, the decision would come in his favour. To his "utter shock and surprise", the petitioner came to know that the Tribunal had passed exparte judgment on 23.8.2007 declaring him to be a foreigner entering India after 25.3.1971 and illegally staying in India without any valid documents and thus liable to be deported forthwith. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that he was unaware about the proceeding before the Tribunal after filing written statement and solely relied on the engaged Advocate to whom he had handed over all relevant documents. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated thus:

9. That it appears from the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2007 that the said Judgment and Order passed exparte without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case. The petitioner submits that he was completely depending on his Counsel but when contacted the counsel informed him that he was not aware of the date of hearing and Judgment.

4. Thus if the aforesaid stand of the petitioner is to be believed, he was solely dependent on the engaged counsel and was not aware of the proceeding before the Tribunal after filing the written statement and due to the laches on the part of the said counsel, the proceeding resulted in exparte hearing and judgment.

5. Mr. A.J. Atia, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner being a citizen of India by birth, the proceeding initiated against him branding him as a foreigner, was wholly unwarranted