IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ.
Kartik Bepari S/O - Late Bhuban Bepari – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 4489/2018
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Foreigners - Citizenship - Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 9 - The court emphasized the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish citizenship, highlighting the necessity for admissible evidence to support claims of Indian nationality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, claiming citizenship based on various documents, including electoral rolls and a school certificate, but faced challenges in proving their authenticity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide admissible evidence to establish his citizenship, as the documents presented were not duly proved according to legal standards.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could prove his citizenship and whether the Tribunal's decision was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, and the failure to provide certified documents led to the conclusion that he is a foreigner.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
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” reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 and as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in the said case, the aforesaid case was transferred to the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri for disposal.
5. On receipt of the reference, on transfer, Case No. BNGN/FT-2/APR/611/2016 was registered and notice was issued to the petitioner.
6. On receipt of the notice from the learned Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and on 06.12.2016, he filed his written statement along with the supporting documents.
7. In his written statement the petitioner has stated that he was born on 20.11.1960 at Mohanpur Village under Jogighopa Police Station and also took his primary education at Mohanpur Primary School in the district of Bongaigaon.
8. He has also stated that the petitioner has landed property at village Mohanpur Part-I covered by Dag No.106/176 under Patta No.84/76, in his name.
9. He has also the petitioner has also stated that the name of his father is Bhuban Chandra Bepari @ Bhuban Bepari and his name was enrolled in the electoral roll of the year 1966 of Village Kabaitari Part-I under No. 43 Bongaigaon Legislative Assembly Constituency.
10. He has also stated that the names of the petitioner's brother and his mother, namely Siddheshwar Bepari and Nagari Bala Bepari respectively were also enrolled in the electoral roll of 1966. Petitioner has also stated that name of his father has also been reflected in the electoral roll of 1970 in Village Kabaitari Part-3 under a Abhayapuri Police Station in the then Goalpara district (Now Bongaigaon District).
11. It is also stated by the petitioner that his name has also been enrolled in the voter list of 1985 at Serial No. 357 against house No. 81 of Village Kabaitari Part-3 under Abhayapuri South (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency along with his other family members.
12. The Petitioner has also stated that, in the year 1986 he shifted his residence to revenue Village Mohanpur Part-2 and his name was enrolled in the voter list of 1997 of Village-Mohanpur Part-2 under No. 35 of Abhayapuri (SC) Legislative Assembly constituency at Serial No. 464 House No. 60. He has also stated that his name has also been included in the voter list of 2008. He further states that he is a bona fide citizen of India by birth.
13. In support of the contentions made by the petitioner in the written statement, he examined himself as DW-1 and filed his evidence on affidavit on 27.01.2017.
14. In his evidence on affidavit, the petitioner, as DW-1, had reiterated the facts which he has stated in his written statement.
15. The petitioner has exhibited following documents while deposing as DW-1
| A. | Exhibit 1 | School Certificate, |
| B. | Exhibit 2 | Landholding Certificate, |
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.
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.