The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies on the individual, and reliable and cogent documentary evidence is required to prove citizenship.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner, by instituting the present proceeding, has assailed the order/opinion dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7, Nagaon at Lanka (Hojai) in F.T./L Case No. 287/2015 arising out of the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border) of erstwhile district Nagaon in SPs Case No. 480/2013 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

3. The basic facts requisite for adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the present proceedings are narrated herein below:

The Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, Assam had submitted a reference against the petitioner suspecting her to be a foreigner having entered into Assam post 25.03.1971. The learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar, on receipt of the reference, registered a Case being F.T./H Case No. 35/2014 and issued notice to the petitioner. However, on creation of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 7, Nagaon at Lanka (Hojai), the said case was transferred and renumbered as F.T./L Case No. 287/2015.

4. The petitioner, on receipt of notice, entered appearance and filed her written statement on 28.07.2015. The petitioner deposed in the proceeding as DW-1 and exhibited certain documents in support of her case. In her written statement, the petitioner denied the allegation levelled against her and contended to be an Indian citizen. The petitioner contended that she was born at Dakhin Laskarpather and that after her marriage she was residing at Bordolong, Nagaon. The petitioner in her written statement has referred to the voter list of 1966 and contended that the name of her projected father is recorded therein, however, the name of her father or her mother was not disclosed. The petitioner also referred to a voter list of 1970 to contend that the names of her mother and her elder brother were recorded therein as voters. However, the names of her mother or her elder brother were not disclosed. The petitioner contended that her name as a voter along with the name of her husband is recorded in the voter list of 1989.

5. The petitioner examined herself as DW-1 and exhibited as many as 8 (eight) documents. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the materials available before it, including the documents exhibited, vide order/opinion dated 27.01.2017, declared the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without proper authorization.

6. Being aggrieved with the impugned order/ opinion dated 27.01.2022 passed by learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7, Nagaon at Lanka in F.T./L Case No. 287/2015, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 09.03.2017.

7. The primary issue for determination in the present proceeding is as to whether the petitioner could establish her linkage with her projected father/mother in order to establish her status of citizenship under the provisions of Section 6(A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there being documents establishing the presence of the father/mother of the petitioner on Indian soil prior to the cut off date, i.e. 25.03.1971, the petitioner cannot be denoted as a foreigner and she is an Indian national for all intent and purpose. It was further contended that the documents exhibited by the petitioner establishes the citizenship status of the petitioner and the same is undisputable.

9. Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court to the additional affidavit filed, has con