Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Susmita Phukan Khaund, JJ.
Anita Majumder D/o Late Rasaraj Mandal - Appellant
Vs.
The Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 360 of 2020
Decided On : 03-04-2024
Foreigners Act - Foreigners Tribunal - 1946 - Summary: The court found that the Foreigners Tribunal did not discuss the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the witnesses, as required by law. The court set aside the final order and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners Tribunal, directing it to pass a reasoned order afresh, discussing all the evidences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 by the Foreigners Tribunal. The court found that the Tribunal did not discuss the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the witnesses, and set aside the final order, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the final order of the Foreigners Tribunal was not in accordance with the law as it did not discuss the evidences adduced by the petitioner and the witnesses, and therefore set it aside.
Issues: Failure of the Foreigners Tribunal to discuss the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the final order of the Foreigners Tribunal was not sustainable in law due to its failure to discuss the evidences adduced by the petitioner and the witnesses.
Final Decision: The court set aside the final order of the Foreigners Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, directing it to pass a reasoned order afresh, discussing all the evidences.
Heard Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 as well as Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No.5.
2. In a police Case being F.T.Case No.353/2014 registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946, police personnel from Noonmati Police Station on making an enquiry, found the petitioner to be a suspected foreigner. As such, as per the report of the concerned authority of Noonmati Police Station, after such enquiry, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Guwahati City on 19.03.2014 referred the matter to the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati under the Foreigners Act, 1946 for its opinion whether the petitioner is or is not a foreigner.
3. The said reference was placed before the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati wherein it was registered as F.T. Case No. 691/2015. The petitioner on receipt of notice under the Foreigners Act, 1946 from the said Tribunal, submitted her written reply/statement before it in said F.T. Case No. 691/2015 on 10.11.2016 stating that Smti Tarulata Mandal is her mother, who is the daughter of one Late Jogesh Chandra Baishya and Late Kripabala Baishya of village Ujandubi, Police Station- Manikpur, Gaon Panchayat -Pelengbari, Mouza-Bijni under Bijni Revenue Circle in the District of Bongaigaon, Assam. She also stated that her father was late Rasaraj Mandal. To prove her case, the petitioner exhibited the following documents before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati:–
(II) Exhibit-II ? Voter List of 1966 pertaining to No.41 Bijni Legislative Assembly Constituency relating to Village No.195 Ujandubi, containing the name of Jogesh Chandra Baishya, aged about 50 years, son of Late Nabin Baishya and his wife Kripabala Baishya, aged about 38 years at Serial Nos.49 and 50 in the House No.33;
(III) Exhibit-III ? Electoral Photo Identity Card issued on 01.10.2013 in the name of Tarulata Mandal, wife of Rasaraj Mandal of Village/Town-Sector-1 (Part), Police Station-Noonmati, Sub-Division-Guwahati, District-Kamrup (M), Assam, relating to No.52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency;
(IV) Exhibit-IV ? Electoral Photo Identity Card issued on 01.09.2015 in the name of Anita Mandal, Daughter of-Tarulata Mandal of Village/Town-Sector-1 (Part), Police Station-Noonmati, Sub-Division-Guwahati, District-Kamrup (M), Assam, relating to No.52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency;
(V) Exhibit-V ? Family Ration Card issued in the name of Tarulata Mandal, wife of Late Rasaraj Mandal of Village-Shoonsali, Ward No.46/22, Sub-Division- Guwahati, District-Kamrup(M) under No.52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency, containing the name of the petitioner as one of the daughters of said Tarulata Mandal;
(VI) Exhibit-VI ? Certificate of Registration under Section (5)(1)(a)/(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 relating to one Rash Raj Mandal, son of Narendra Chandra Mandal with No.247251, issued by Sub-Divisional Officer/Block Development Officer, Barpeta;
(VII) Exhibit-VII ? A Photostat copy of Voter List of the year 1997 of village Amaypur/Kahibari, Block No.56 of Pub Baska, where the name of one Rasa Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Krishnakanta Mandal and one Tarulata Mandal, aged about 32 years, wife of Rasa Mandal at Serial Nos.247 and 248 in the House No.77 was reflected;
(VIII) Exhibit-VII ? Voter List of 2015 of No.52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency showing the name of Anita Mandal, Daughter of Tarulata Mandal, aged about 34 years at Srial No.1405 in the house No.1612;
(IX) Exhibit-VIII ? Voter List of 2013 No.52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency showing the name of Rasaraj Mandal, son of Narandra Mandal, aged about 56 years at Ser
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 under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 requires individuals to establish their Indian citizenship, including proving linkage with projected parents and grandparents.
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.
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 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 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....
The Tribunal's failure to consider critical evidence invalidated its decision, necessitating a fresh review of the case.
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 Tribunal's proceedings were invalid due to lack of authorization, requiring annulment of the ex parte order.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
