Point of Law : Section 9 provides that the onus of proof can shift depending on nature of evidence laid by a party. Since it is the responsibility of proceedee to lay evidence to show that he or she is not a foreigner, yet if proceedee is satisfactorily able to show that he/she is not a foreigner, onus of proof may shift to State.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6; Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Chouhdury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; Ms. Devi also appears for respondent No.8 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 9 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 7.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned opinion dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (II), Dhubri, Assam in F.T. Case No.570/F/15 [Police Ref. Case No.1194/98] by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the records as also reflected in the order passed by the learned Tribunal are as follows.

4. Upon receipt of summons from the learned Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal, filed her written statement and also adduced a number of documents which are as follows,

1. One G.P. certificate, issued by Secretary, Salakata G.P. (Ext.1)

2. One photocopies of Voter I/Card (Ext.2)

3. Extract Certified copy of Electoral Roll, 1966 (Ext.3)

4. Extract Certified copy of Electoral Roll, 1970 (Ext.4)

5. Registered Sale Deed No.1185 dated 03.10.66 (Ext.5)

6. Extract Certified copy of Electoral Roll, 1985 (Ext.6)

7. Extract Certified copy of Electoral Roll, 1997 (Ext.7)

8. Extract Certified copy of Electoral Roll, 2005 (Ext.8)

9. Periodic Khiraj Patta No.469 in the name of the petitioner & others (Ext.10)

10. Ration Card (Ext.11)

11. Voter I. Card (Ext.13 to 19)

12. H.S.L.C. Admit Card of DW-2 (Ext.20)

13. B.A. Passed Certificate of DW-2 (Ext.21)

14. Death Certificate of petitioner’s father (Ext.23)

The petitioner examined herself as DW1, her brother as DW2 and one Gaon Panchayat Secretary as DW3.

5. The learned Tribunal, however, on assessing the evidence on record, both oral and documentary held that the petitioner was unable to establish her linkage with her projected Indian parents relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971 which is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as amended and the narrative presented by the petitioner suffers from multiple contradictions and omission rendering the same as highly suspicious and improbable.

Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has failed to discharge her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that she is not a foreigner, but an Indian citizen.

6. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal to give the aforesaid conclusion as mentioned in the impugned opinion dated 26.10.2018 reads as follows.

1. Exihibit 1 is the G.P. certificate, issued by the Secretary, Salkata Gaon Panchayat in the name of Pinjira Khatun, Do Lt. Kuzrat Ali Mandal. In this regards; O.P. summoned the G.P. Secretary Kamal Uddin Ahmed, who issued the certificate on 10-01-18 and appeared before the Tribunal as DW-3 and deposed his evidence. But this G.P. Certificate will not render any help to the O.P. This has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 15 and 16 of Rupjan Begum Vs. Union of India, in a decided case vide 2018 (1) SCC 579. In para 15, “the certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary merely acknowledge the shifting of residence of a married women from one village to another. The said certificate by itself and by no means establishes any claim of Citizenship of the certificate holder”. Moreover the certificate (Ext.1) was issued by the Secretary without proper inquiry and verification of the documents of O.P. The certificate is also not issued as per guideline of state government. Hence O.P. failed to establish her linkage through the submitted Exbt.-1.

2. Exhi