SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Karim Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7361 of 2017
Decided On : 16-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
N. Ahmed, A.R. Sikdar, G. Sarma, U. Das, L. Devi, R.K. Dev Choudhury.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner has successfully proved his Indian citizenship through oral and documentary evidences, and the court applied the principle of preponderance of probability in evaluating the evidences.

Headnote:

Foreigner Tribunal - Citizenship - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 112, Sec. 50 - The court examined the evidences and found that the petitioner has been able to discharge his burden of proving that he is an Indian, not a foreigner. The court allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned opinion and held that the petitioner is an Indian.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 5th, Goalpara, which declared him a foreigner who entered into Assam after 1971. The petitioner presented oral and documentary evidences to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian and not a foreigner. The Tribunal declined to believe the petitioner's claim primarily based on the absence of his father's name in voters lists before 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner has been able to discharge his burden of proving that he is an Indian, not a foreigner, based on the oral and documentary evidences presented. The court held that the absence of the petitioner's father's name in voters lists before 1985 does not negate the evidence of his presence in India, as evidenced by his appearance in the Intermediate Examination in 1968.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of Indian citizenship, the credibility of oral and documentary evidences, and the Tribunal's reasoning for not believing the petitioner's claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of preponderance of probability and found that the petitioner's oral and documentary evidences, including the testimony of his mother and other relatives, sufficiently proved his Indian citizenship. The court also emphasized the relevance of oral evidence in proving relationships and place of stay.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned opinion, and held that the petitioner is an Indian.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. SGI, accepts notice for respondent no. 1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Special Counsel, F.T., accepts notice for respondent no. 4 and Ms. U. Das, learned Judicial Government Advocate, Assam, accepts notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18/9/2017 passed in F.T. Case No. FT/5/341/MA/16 by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 5th, Goalpara.

3. After a reference was made and notice issued by the Tribunal, the petitioner duly appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement and produced a number of documents. The petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and his maternal uncle, namely Maharaj Ali as DW-2, his mother, namely, Kadbhanu Nessa as DW-3 and his younger brother, namely, Abdul Kuddus as DW-4 to substantiate that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner. However, the Tribunal declined to believe the plea of the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that though there is evidence that his father had appeared in the Intermediate Examination held in the year 1968 from Katarihara Senior Madrassa but thereafter, the petitioner's father's name did not appear in any of the voters lists except in the voters lists of 1985 and afterwards. Accordingly, the Tribunal made the finding against the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is a foreigner who entered into Assam after 1971.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there are sufficient evidences on record to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian and not a foreigner. In this regard he has referred to oral and documentary evidences brought from his maternal as well as from the paternal side. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was a Gharjamai (a person who resides in the house of his wife after marriage) and as such, the petitioner has referred to various documents from his mother's side.

5. Before we proceed to examine the reasons as to why the petitioner had been declared as a foreigner by the Tribunal, it may be apposite to refer to the oral and docume-ntary evidence adduced before the Tribunal.

Evidences:

6. Coming to the documentary evidence as can be seen from the original records which are produced before us, one admit card issued by the State Madrassa Education Board, Government of Assam, which was exhibited as Exhibit-A(i) before the Tribunal, in which the name of one Md. Asadozzaman of Katarihara Senior Madrassa is shown, who had appeared in the intermediate examination in the year 1968 held in Dhubri under Roll No. 18. The said Exhibit-A(i) is the duplicate copy of the admit card. Exhibit-B is the voters list of 1966 in which the name of Maubhan Bewa as the wife of Late Alimuddin appeared showing her to be aged about 60 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Maubhan Bewa is the paternal grandmother i.e. the mother of his father Asadoz Zaman. Voters list of 1970 which is exhibited as Exhibit-C where the name of said Maubhan Bewa again appears as the wife of Late Alimuddin. Exhibit-D is a copy of the Middle School Leaving Certificate issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Public Instruction, 1940 in the name of Abdul Goni Mia, who is the father of the petitioner's mother Kadbhanu Nessa, from Ramharichar MV School, Goalpara. Exhibit-E is the service document issued to Abdul Goni Mia. The petitioner has also exhibited the NRC of 1951 as Exhibit-E issued to his grandfather Abdul Goni Mia. Another document showing the employment of the said Abdul Ghoni as a teacher issued in the year 1970 is exhibited as Exhibit-E. Again Exhibit-F is the copy of the NRC of 1951 where the name of Abdul Gani Mia appeared as the son of Kanu Sheikh. Exhibit-G is the voters list of 1961 showing the name of Abdul Gani as the son of Kanu under the village Sonerchala, Dist

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top