IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
Karful Nessa W/o Late Kofer Ali – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5307 of 2020
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964 - Section 13(3) - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 8, 9 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of proof - Petitioner to be a person who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 and accordingly directed that she be pushed back to the specified territory in exercise of the powers - Whether she is a person who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 from specified territory which resulted in registration of Case - Held, Secretary to Government of Assam in the Home Department is directed to review the entire performance of Assistant Government Pleaders and ensure that the role of the Assistant Government Pleader is done as per requirement of law and to protect the interest of the State and not merely to remain present in proceedings without any pro active role - Respondents in Home Department of the Government of Assam raises an objection that in most of the cases before the Foreigners Tribunal, list of the witnesses is not given - If it is so, Assistant Government Pleaders can raise this objection before Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to ensure that the lists of witnesses are provided by the proceedees so that the Assistant Government Pleaders can look into the acceptability of such witnesses - Writ petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
1. Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC for the respondents in the Union of India, Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the respondents in the Home Department of Government of Assam, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned counsel for the respondents in the Election Commission of India, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned counsel for the respondents in the NRC and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta.
2. The petitioner Karful Nessa had been referred to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 10, Barpeta for rendering an opinion as to whether she is a person who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory which resulted in registration of Case No. F.T. 384/2016. The Tribunal rendered its opinion dated 13.02.2018 declaring the petitioner to be a person who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 and accordingly directed that she be pushed back to the specified territory in exercise of the powers under Section 13(3) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.
3. In the writ proceeding, the petitioner relies upon the voters list of 1966 of village 129 Baladmari Part-IV, police station-Goalpara in the present district Goalpara, which contains the name of Kobat Akond son of late Saraf Uddin at serial No. 6 and that of Fuljan Nessa wife of Kobat Akond at Serial No. 7 as well as Gendeli Bewa wife of late Saraf Uddin at serial No. 8. Reliance is also placed on the voters list of 1970 of village 129 Baladmari Char Part-IV under Goalpara police station, which also contains the name of Kobat Akond, son of Late Saraf Uddin at Serial No. 9, Fuljan Nessa wife of Kobat Akond at Serial No. 10 and Gendeli Bewa, wife of late Saraf Uddin at Serial No. 11.
4. In the writ proceeding, the petitioner relies upon a certificate dated 18.11.2016 of the Secretary, Baladmari Char Gaon Panchayat as well as the evidence rendered by Imon Ali (Dewani), where his father’s name is not very legible except for his surname Akond, who is also a resident of village Baladmari Char as DW-2 and that of Karim Akand, son of late Kobath Akand, aged about 53 years, resident of village Baladmari Char Part-II under Goalpara police station.
5. If the petitioner can establish that she is the daughter of Kobat Akond whose name appears in the voters list of 1966 and 1970 of village Baladmari Char Part-IV, the petitioner would discharge her burden under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (in short Act of 1946) to show that she is a citizen of India. To discharge the said burden, the petitioner, firstly as indicated above, relies on the certificate issued by the Secretary, Baladmari Char Gaon Panchayat, where the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had not been examined by the petitioner in support of the said certificate. But, as the certificate had been relied upon, we take note of the contents thereof which is extracted as below:
GOVT. OF ASSAM
OFFICE OF THE 51 NO. BALADMARI CHAR GAON PANCHAYAT
BALADMARI CHAR
NO. BCGP/V/CERT/2016-17
Dated: 18.11.2016
TO
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is the certify that Sri/Smti Karful Bewa S/o, D/o, W/o, Shri/Late Kobad Akand Village 2 - No. Baladmari Char P.O. Baladmari Char P.S.
Goalpara Dist Goalpara (Assam)
I wish his/her all success in life.
This Certificate is valid for Linkage Certificate purpose only.
N.B. Her father name is record in the electoral roll 1966 vide S. No. 6 and house no. 3 at village 199 baladmari PT-IV P.O. Goalpara, District Golapara under 45 east Goalpara LAC.
She had married with LT Kofer Ali S/o LT Ijar Pramanik at Village Katajhar Pathar, P.O. Katajhar Pathar, P.S. Gobardhana, District Barpeta (Assam)
To the best of my knowledge the above statement is true.”
6. The certificate dated 18.11.2016 which also has its own issue number, contains that Karful Nessa is the daughter of Kobad Akand of village No. 2 Baladmari Char under Goalpara police station in the Goalpara d
Rupajan Begum vs. Union of India and Others
Sirajul Hoque vs. State of Assam and Others
Point of law: Citizenship - Merely because a witness or a proceedee has not produced the land document, it would be sufficient to draw an adverse inference that he is not an Indian.
The burden of proving citizenship lies strictly with the individual. Judicial oversight via writ jurisdiction is limited to the decision-making process and does not permit the re-evaluation of factua....
The burden of proof on individuals asserting citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, and the need for documentary evidence and verification of contents to establish citizenship.
Merely because documents were collected by petitioner during pendency of reference, it cannot be a ground to ignore same as documents have to be examined as regards the genuineness, authenticity, rel....
In citizenship determination, the legal burden of proof rests solely upon the individual. Appellate courts exercising writ jurisdiction serve a supervisory role, reviewing only the decision-making pr....
In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof rests entirely on the individual. Documentary evidence requires proof of both authenticity and contents through the examination of authors and contempo....
The burden of proving citizenship lies exclusively with the individual under the applicable statutory framework. Writ courts possess supervisory jurisdiction and will not perform the role of an appel....
The burden of proving citizenship lies solely with the proceedee. Judicial review of tribunal findings is restricted to the decision-making process, and a tribunal cannot declare individuals as forei....
Mere absence of documentary evidence would not dilute the evidentiary value of the oral testimony.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.