IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
SONABHAN BIBI @ SONABHAN NESSA D/O SAGOR ALI SHEIKH – Petitioner
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI – Respondent
WP (C) No. 368 of 2020
Decided On : 05-09-2024
Foreigners - Citizenship - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Sections 9 - The court emphasized the importance of considering police verification reports and voter lists in citizenship cases, leading to the remand of the case for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal's opinion declaring her a foreigner. She claimed citizenship based on her family's presence in voter lists and NRC details, but the Tribunal disbelieved her evidence due to inconsistencies and lack of documentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal failed to consider crucial evidence, including police verification reports and voter lists, which could substantiate the petitioner's claims of citizenship.
Issues: Whether the Foreigners Tribunal properly considered all evidence, including police verification reports and voter lists, in determining the petitioner's citizenship status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal's failure to consider relevant evidence constituted a significant error, warranting a remand for a fresh decision.
Result: The opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Shelim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Adhikari, learned CGC, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for Foreigners’ Tribunal matters.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely Sonabhan Bibi @ Sonabhan Nessa, has assailed the opinion dated 15.10.2019, passed by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal No. 8th, Goalpara in F.T. Case No. 754/2017 [corresponding to IM(D) T Case No. 407/2000], by which she was declared to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
3. In order to discharge her burden to prove that the petitioner is not a foreigner, as required under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in her written statement the petitioner has projected late Sagor Ali Sheikh, son of late Moyjuddin as her father and late Mojiron Bibi as her mother, whose name appear in the National Register of Citizen (NRC for short) details, 1951 of village 189 Kashiartari, under Lakhipur Police Station District Goalpara. She has also projected Omar Kaji as her elder brother, who along with his parents was enrolled in the voter list of 1970 of the 44 Goalpara West L.A.C. She claims to have been born and brought up at village Chitolmari, under Lakhipur P.S. in the district of Goalpara. She has projected that she was married to Kobed Ali, as per Muslim rites and rituals and after marriage her name was enlisted for the first time as voter in the voter list of 1989 along with her husband under 56 Singulipara Part-1 village under No. 38 Goalpara West L.A.C. She has also stated that her name along with her husband and other family members appeared in the voter list of 1997 of village 56 Singulipara Part-1, but her age was wrongly recorded as 25 instead of 27. The petitioner shifted along with her husband to village 405 Sontoshpur in the district of Dhubri. Her name appeared in the voter list of 2005 under the same village and thereafter her name along with other family members was enlisted in the voter list of 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 but her age was erroneously recorded as 37, 38, 39, and 40 instead of 41, 44, 45, 46, and 48 and she was also issued a Elector Photo Identity Card in the year 2013. Petitioner further projects that her actual and correct name is Sonabhanu Bibi but in the voter list, her name is erroneously recorded as Sonabhanu, Sonabhan Bibi, Sonabhan Nessa. In the written statement it was stated that could produce more documents before the learned tribunal in support of her citizenship at the time of giving evidence. In her written statement, the petitioner had enclosed the photocopies of the NRC details of 1951, photocopy of certified copy of voter list of 1966, 1970, 1977, 1989, 1997, 2005, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and Elector Photo Identity Card as Annexure I to XIII respectively.
4. By filing her evidence-on-affidavit as PW-1 the petitioner has reiterated her stand in the written statement. She has exhibited the certified copy of voter list of 1966, 1970, 1977, 1997, 2005 and the Elector Photo Identity Card as Exhibit Nos. A to F respectively. However, the photocopy of voter list of 1990, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 were referred to as Annexure I to VII respectively and were not marked as exhibits. The records (TCR for short) received from the Tribunal reveals that the PAN Card of the petitioner is marked as Ext.G, but there is no corresponding pleading either in the written statement or in the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner.
5. In her cross-examination recorded on 07.06.2017, the petitioner had stated that she was married, 30 years back and that time she was 15/16 years old and after marriage she went to her husband and she has 7 children. She has stated that her father had expired about 13/15 years back at village Chitolmari, her mother name is Mojiron Khatun and she had expired at village Nayer Al
AI
The court established that all relevant evidence, including police verification and voter lists, must be considered in citizenship determinations under the Foreigners Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which was not met due to insufficient evidence linking her to her claimed lineage.
Claimants asserting citizenship must substantiate their claims with credible evidence, failing which their claims may be dismissed as seen in foreigner cases.
If a proceedee has disclosed credible relevant facts on the basis of which he is claiming citizenship, it will be incumbent upon the State to, in our opinion, verify these facts and if necessary, lea....
Point of law: Citizenship - Merely because a witness or a proceedee has not produced the land document, it would be sufficient to draw an adverse inference that he is not an Indian.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign nationality.
The court established that the burden of proof in citizenship cases lies with the petitioner, but the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence presented.
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.