M. R. PATHAK, MITALI THAKURIA
Maya Barman @ Maya Rani Barman Daughter of Lt. Manteswar Barman – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 & 6 as well as Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 5.
2. The respondent No.1, the Union of India as well as respondent No.3, the Election Commission of India remained unrepresented.
3. In pursuant to a Reference received from the Superintendent of Police (Border), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam, the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-1st, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in F.T.(1st) Case No. 4057/2011 (District No.23/1997) had passed the impugned Final Order/Opinion dated 22.11.2019 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner under the Foreigner Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.
4. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Final Order/Opinion dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1st, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India f
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen
Failure to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, can result in a declaration of foreigner status.
The burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 requires individuals to establish their Indian citizenship, including proving linkage with projected parents and grandparents.
The court reinforced that under the Foreigners Act, the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual, and failure to provide adequate evidence results in the presumption of foreignness.
The burden of proof lies on the individual asserting citizenship, requiring documentary evidence to establish lineage and citizenship, as per Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
The burden of proof for citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies with the proceedee, and insufficient evidence leads to the presumption of foreigner status.
The burden of proving citizenship lies on the individual claiming it, necessitating admissible and reliable evidence to establish linkage with parents.
The burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish their citizenship status, and reliable and cogent documentary evidence is required to prove citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof lies solely on the individual. Oral testimony of relatives, without corroborating admissible documentary evidence, is insufficient to establish linkage....
A foreigner's status must be proven by credible and verifiable evidence linking them to claimed Indian ancestors; mere appearances in voter rolls are insufficient.
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.