Back
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Kartik Bepari S/O - Late Bhuban Bepari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Ms. F. N. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 2 & 4, Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam for Respondent No. 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner namely, Kartik Bepari, impugning the order/opinion dated 07.04.2018, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri in Case No. BNGN/FT-2/APR/611/2016, whereby the petitioner was declared as a foreigner, who entered into India, Assam, after 25.03.1971.
3. On perusal of the case records, it appears that initially the reference was made against the petitioner under Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as IM(D)T Act] by the Superintendent of Police (B) Bongaigaon to the learned Illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal, Goalpara, suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant, who entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.
4. Later on, after striking down of the IM(D)T Act, 1983 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India & Anr” reporte
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.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
The burden of proof lies on the individual asserting citizenship to establish their linkage with legacy persons and provide evidence based on personal knowledge. Documentary evidence alone may not su....
Merely because documents were collected by petitioner during pendency of reference, it cannot be a ground to ignore same as documents have to be examined as regards the genuineness, authenticity, rel....
Point of Law : 12, 16. Under Section 9 of Foreigners' Act, 1946, burden is on proceedee to prove that she is not a foreigner, but a citizen of India and this burden never shifts.
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 on individuals asserting citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, and the need for documentary evidence and verification of contents to establish citizenship.
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.
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
