IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Sanjay Kumar Medhi, JJ.
Baten Paramanik @ Abdul Bater S/o Jainal Paramanik @ Jainal Poramani @ Joynal Abdin- Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, Trilok Marg, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/82/2024
Decided On : 13-02-2024
Article 226 - Foreigner's Tribunal - Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 9 - Order 4(e) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Order 4(e) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. It highlighted the burden of proof on the proceedee to establish citizenship and the procedure for setting aside ex parte orders. The court also emphasized the requirement of proving documents and the limitations of relying on documents submitted without proper proof.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared a foreigner post 25.03.1971 by the Foreigners Tribunal due to failure to appear and provide evidence. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the default in appearance was due to the fault of his counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the explanations regarding the default in appearance insufficient and vague. It held that the burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee and emphasized the need for proper proof of documents submitted. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the final order of the Foreigners Tribunal did not call for interference.
Issues: Default in appearance, burden of proof, interpretation of Order 4(e) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and the requirement of proving documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee, and documents submitted must be proved in accordance with the law. The court also clarified the interpretation of Order 4(e) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and emphasized the limitations of relying on unproven documents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court ordered the return of the records to the Foreigners Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the opinion rendered vide impugned order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal (3rd), Darrang in F.T.(3) Case No. 6280/2022 (Ref-FT Case No. 309/2009). By the impugned judgment, the petitioner who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971. As per the projection made in the petition, the aforesaid order is an ex parte one.
2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:
(i) The reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Darrang, Mangaldai District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. (3) Case No. 6280/2022.
(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner had filed the written statement on 18.07.2023 along with certain documents. Thereafter, though at least 5 dates were fixed for filing of evidence on affidavit, neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared and accordingly on 14.11.2023, the impugned order has been passed.
(iii) The learned Tribunal after noticing the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 had come to a finding that the petitioner as opposite party had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971.
3. We have heard Shri A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam, Shri H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 10.01.2024.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the default in appearance was on account of the fault on the part of his counsel. It is submitted that the engaged lawyer neither appeared himself nor informed the petitioner about the dates and rather assured the petitioner that the matter was being taken care of. Shri Sarkar has however submitted that the written statement was indeed filed on 18.07.2023 and on the subsequent date i.e. 11.08.2023, time was taken to file the evidence on affidavit.
5. By referring to Order 4(e) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, Shri Sarkar, learned counsel submits that the aforesaid provision vests powers upon the Tribunal to issue warrant of arrest to secure the attendance of a party and without exercising the said power, the decision to proceed ex parte is not proper.
6. Shri Sarkar further submits that the documents which are available and annexed to the writ petition would ex facie demonstrate his citizenship. In this connection, the Voter Lists of 1966 and 1977 have been referred to containing the name of the projected father of the petitioner. Reference has also been made to the Voter Lists of 1993, 1997, 2010 and 2023 by contending that the same contain the name of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has accordingly submitted that he was deprived from an opportunity to contest the case which proceeded ex parte and therefore, the instant petition may be allowed and the matter be remanded back for a fresh adjudication on merits.
8. Per contra, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department has at the outset emphatically refuted the primary contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 14.11.2023 of the learned Tribunal is an ex parte order. It is submitted that notices were duly served whereafter, the petitioner had also filed his written statement on 18.07.2023 and thereafter, on 11.08.2023 had taken time to fi
AI
The burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee, and documents submitted must be proved in accordance with the law.
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act remains with the individual, regardless of representation, and failure to provide evidence justifies a tribunal's determination of foreign n....
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee, and the Writ Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the decision-making process.
The burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining the decision-making process.
The burden of proving citizenship rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the proceedee under the relevant statute. In writ jurisdiction, the court acts in a supervisory capacity and will not interfere with factual findin....
The burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 lies upon the person claiming citizenship, and the evidence presented must be supported by documentary evidence and contemporaneous rec....
The burden of proof for establishing Indian citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and a writ court does not interfere with factual findings of a Tribunal.
The burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish citizenship, and voter lists must be relied upon in their entirety to prove citizenship.
The burden of proving citizenship lies exclusively on the individual. Judicial review via a writ of certiorari is strictly supervisory, precluding appellate re-evaluation of factual findings or evide....
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.