Back
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN
Rejina Bibi W/o Najrul Islam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 6, being the Union of India and the State Coordinator of NRC, respectively. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 4, being the authorities in the Home Department; Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, being the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(R), Amingaon and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, being the authorities in the Election Commission of India.
2. The petitioner Rejina Bibi was referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (Rural) for rendering an opinion as to whether she is a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and accordingly GFT(R) Case No. 1695/2017 was registered. The Tribunal had rendered its opinion dated 30.04.2019, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Being aggrieved, WP (C) No. 3970/2019 was instituted which was given a final consideration by the order dated 10.03.2023.
3. In WP (C) No. 3970/2019, the petitioner relied upon the voters’ list of 1966 of village Nahira, Mouza Pub Samaria,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of producing original school records through the Headmaster of the school to establish the information contained in the school certif....
The burden of proof regarding citizenship lies on the proceedee, and failure to provide adequate admissible evidence results in a declaration of foreigner status as per the Foreigners Act.
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 solely with the proceedee. Judicial review of tribunal findings is restricted to the decision-making process, and a tribunal cannot declare individuals as forei....
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 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 judgment establishes that the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring admissible and reliable evidence to counter claims of foreign status.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
