The burden of proof lies on the individual to establish their citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and presenting reliable and verified evidence is crucial to prove citizenship status.

JUDGMENT

Soumitra Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. B. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Payeng, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1; Ms. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for respondent No.3 and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, NRC for respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Dhemaji at Silapathar in FT Case No.26/2018. By the said order, the Member, Foreigners Tribunal on the grounds and reasons mentioned therein rendered its opinion declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971, under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who had illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971 without valid documents and directed the Deputy Commissioner (Election), Dhemaji as well as the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhemaji to take necessary steps as per law.

3. The petitioner claims to be an Indian citizen by birth and a permanent resident of No.2 Bhairabpur under Silapathar Police Station of Dhemaji district in the State of Assam. He claims to be belonging to Bengali Nath Community (Hindu).

4. From the recital of the opinion dated 13.05.2019 rendered by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Dhemaji, it is seen that the case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhemaji expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner with a further prayer to decide whether the petitioner is an illegal migrant or not. On receipt of the reference, the learned Tribunal registered a case and issued notice on the petitioner and pursuant to the receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and contested the case.

5. In his written statements filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, he projected the case that he was born and brought up at village Murkongselek, P.O./P.S.-Jonai, Mouza-Jonai in the district of Dhemaji in Assam. The petitioner projected one Banamali Debnath and one Manimala Debnath as his father and mother respectively. He stated in his written statements filed on 27.01.2019, that he was born about 38 years ago in No.2 Bhairabpur village, P.S.- Silapathat, district Dhemaji at the address mentioned in the written statement. He submitted that the allegations against him that he illegally entered Assam after 24.03.1971 or between 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971 as an illegal migrant without valid documents was baseless, false, fabricated and entirely concocted.

In support of his case, the petitioner exhibited the following documents:

Ext.1-Membership certificate issued by Akhil Assam Udbastu Congress.

Ext.2-Copy of land document for the year 1966.

Ext.3-Certified copy of the voter list for the year 1966 under 115 Dhemaji LAC.

Ext.4-Certified copy of voter list for the year 1997 under 114 Jonai LAC.

Ext.5-Death certificate of Banamali Debnath, S/O-Narendra Debnath.

Ext.6-Caste certificate of Banamali Debnath, S/O-Narendra Debnath.

Ext.6(A)- Caste certificate of Biswajit Debnath.

Ext.7-School certificate issued by the Office Headmaster, Silapathar Janajati High School.

Ext.8-Birth certificate of Biswajit Debnath, S/O-Banamali Debnath.

Ext.9- Copy of the ration card.

Ext.10-Certificate issued by the President, Muktiar Gaon Panchayat, P.O.- Silabali, district-Dhemaji.

6. In Ext.1, Ext.7 and Ext.10 as the authors were not examined, the Tribunal considered them to be not proved and the exhibits were considered to have no evidentiary value. In so far as Ext.3 is concerned, which is the certified copy of voter's list of 1966, the petitioner/proceedee relied on Ext.3 to project one Narendra Debnath whose name appeared in the said voters list to be his grandfather. The Tribunal held that the age of the father, namely, Narendra Debnath is shown to be calculated