Back
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Jyotshna Rani Saha@Jyotsna Rani W/O Labu Saha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel, for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam, for respondent Nos. 2 and 6; and Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India, for Respondent No. 3. Also heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for respondent No. 5.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner Jyotshna Rani Saha @ Jyotsna Rani, impugning the judgment and order dated 28.05.2018, passed in F.T. 9th (Bar) Case No.408/2015, by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, (9th), Barpeta, Assam, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. Earlier on 17.12.2019, the Court called for the records of said Foreigners’ Tribunal Case from the concerned Tribunal.
4. On perusal of the record, we have seen that having reasonable doubt that the
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
The burden of proving citizenship lies on the individual claiming it, necessitating admissible and reliable evidence to establish linkage with parents.
The petitioner failed to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as the presented documentation was insufficient and lacked proper verification.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
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.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring admissible and reliable evidence to counter claims of foreign status.
When a private document is required to be proved. Even if these certificates are considered to be private documents, fact remains that these documents are more than 30 years old and if these document....
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
