IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, JJ.
Musstt. Jahanara Khatoon @ Musstt. Jahanara Begum W/O Md. Zamir Ali – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, To Be Rep. By Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Home Department, North Block, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1238 of 2017
Decided On : 10-11-2023
Foreigners' Tribunal Case - Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 9 - The court discussed the proceedings of the Foreigners' Tribunal Case No. FTC (6) 331/2016 initiated against the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The court highlighted the burden of proof on the suspect to establish citizenship and the consequences of failing to discharge that burden. The court also emphasized the principle of res judicata in cases before the Foreigners' Tribunal and the requirement for reasoned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to set aside and quash the proceedings of Foreigners' Tribunal Case No. FTC (6) 331/2016, alleging harassment by the police and suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving Indian citizenship and willfully suppressed material facts before the court. The court dismissed the writ petition and recalled the interim order.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim of harassment, the burden of proof in establishing citizenship, and the suppression of material facts before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof on the suspect to establish citizenship and the consequences of failing to discharge that burden. The court also highlighted the principle of res judicata in cases before the Foreigners' Tribunal and the requirement for reasoned orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, the interim order was recalled, and the records of the case were returned to the Foreigners' Tribunal. The court also directed the Superintendent of Police (Border) for information and necessary action.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Pathak, J.
Heard Mr. A. S. Tapader, 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 & Political Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9; Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No. 8.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition on 25.01.2017 praying amongst others, to set aside and quash all and entire proceeding of Foreigners’ Tribunal Case No. F.T.C. (6) 331/2016 initiated against her under the Foreigners Act, 1946, pending before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam submitting that in an earlier proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 that commenced on the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur in S.P. Case No. 16/15, the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 2nd, Sonitpur, Tezpur by order dated 26.05.2015 passed in F.T. Case No. 27/2015 opined that the petitioner is not a foreigner.
3. The petitioner contended that on another reference being made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur, the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6, Tezpur at Sootea, initiated a fresh proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 by registering the Case No. F.T.C. (6) 331/2016, wherein notice was issued to her, which she received on 12.04.2016.
4. Petitioner stated that the earlier proceeding against her in F.T. Case No. 27/2015 was initiated on being referred by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur and she alleged that the subsequent case against her was at the instance of the Officer-in-Charge of Sootea Police Station. As per the petitioner that fact is clear from the two notices of two different cases issued to her and the process by which she is harassed by police alleging that she is a foreigner. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner also stated that in the notice given to her in the earlier case, i.e., in F.T. Case No. 27/2015 her name was shown as Musstt. Jahanara Khatoon, whereas, in the subsequent case, i.e., in the Case No. F.T.C. (6) 331/2016 she was shown as Jahanara Begum, stating further that in both the cases name of her husband Md. Jamir Ali, her father late Harmuz Ali and her address resident of village Boktapatta, Police Station-Sootea, District-Sonitpur remained same.
6. Petitioner submitted that in the earlier case against her, i.e., in F.T. Case No. 27/2015 she filed her Written Statement and documents and was also examined as witness by the Tribunal concerned and on the basis of such evidence on record and the documents produced by her, submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Foreigners’ Tribunal, 2nd, Sonitpur, Tezpur in F.T. Case No. 27/2015 being satisfied passed the order on 26.05.2015 that she was found not to be a foreigner which otherwise implies that she is a citizen of India.
7. Considering such submission of the petitioner, the Court in Motion stage, on 06.03.2017 while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an order requisitioning the case records of said Case No. F.T.C. (6) 331/2016 from the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6, Sonitpur, Tezpur at Sootea and in the interim stayed the further proceedings of said Case No. F.T.C. (6) 331/2016 pending before the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6, Sonitpur, Tezpur at Sootea.
8. We have perused the records of said Case No. F.T.C. (6) 331/2016 that was called for by the Court on 06.03.2017.
9. It is seen from the said record that the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur in F.T. Case No. 251/13 vide communication dated 13.09.2013 informed the Sub Inspector of Police (UB) of Sootea Police Station that it was learnt that Musstt. Jahanara Begum, wife of Jamir Ali of Village -Bokraputta under Sootea Police Station is a suspected
The burden of proof on the suspect to establish citizenship and the consequences of failing to discharge that burden, as well as the requirement for reasoned orders in cases before the Foreigners' Tr....
Point of Law : POCSO - In spite of burden of proof cast on the proceedee as provided under S. 9 of Foreigners Act, 1946, the standard of proof required is "preponderance of probability" and not proof....
The principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before the Foreigners' Tribunal, and the earlier opinion of the Tribunal has a binding effect.
The main legal point established is that the right to a reasonable opportunity to prove nationality and procedural fairness are essential in nationality determination cases under the Foreigners Act, ....
The principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial decisions, requiring reasoned orders for binding effect in subsequent proceedings.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Foreigners Tribunal to discuss all evidences adduced by the petitioner and the witnesses in reaching its decision.
In citizenship proceedings, the statutory burden of proof rests entirely on the individual to provide consistent and corroborated documentary evidence. Oral testimony, when contradictory or unsupport....
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.