Back
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Hasina Khatun W/O Nur Ali – 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. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Mehdi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. J. Peyang, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 2 and 4, Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for Respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. H. Kuli, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India appearing for the Respondent No.5.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Hasina Khatun, impugning the order/opinion dated 20.08.2017, passed by learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon 2, Abhayapuri, in Case No. BNGN/FT/1476/07, 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. Notice in this case was issued on 04.05.2017 and the original case record of Case No. BNGN/FT/1476/07 was called for from the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2 at Abhayapuri. The said record has been received by this Court by the order dated 04.05.2017, the petitioner was granted interim protection against ar
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 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 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....
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.
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 burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
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.
The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies on the individual, and reliable and cogent documentary evidence is required to prove citizenship.
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
