IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ.
Hasina Khatun W/O Nur Ali – 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)/2480/2017
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Foreigners - Citizenship - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - The court emphasized the burden of proof on the individual claiming citizenship, highlighting the necessity for credible documentary evidence to establish nationality, which the petitioner failed to provide.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, having allegedly entered India after 25.03.1971. The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship based on voter lists and familial connections, which were contested by the state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove her citizenship, as the documents presented were not certified and the oral testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could prove her citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and whether the Tribunal's findings were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the individual claiming citizenship, and mere oral testimony is insufficient without corroborating documentary evidence.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
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 arrest as well as against deportation from India.
4. The fact which transpires on perusal of the Case record of Case No. BNGN/FT/1476/07, relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are as follows.
ii. On the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, a reference under the provisions of Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 was made to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon by the Superintendent of Police (Border) Bongaigaon for determining the nationality of above-named petitioner, as per the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
iii. On receipt of the reference by the Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon, BNGN/FT/ Case No. 1476/07 was registered and notice was issued to the petitioner.
iv. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement along with the supporting documents.
5. On 06.08.2014 the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon finding that the name of the father of the petitioner/proceedee has not been mentioned in the reference or in the inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon, directed the police to re-investigate the matter to ascertain the name of the father of the petitioner and to submit a report.
6. Accordingly, the matter was investigated and a report was furnished by one Shri Dalim Medhi, SI (B) Jogighopa Police Station, wherein it was mentioned that the name of the father of the petitioner is Kapasu Sheikh.
7. During inquiry before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon the petitioner adduced the evidence of two witnesses in support of her claim of being an Indian national.
8. In her written statement, the petitioner, Hasina Khatun has stated that she is an Indian citizen having permanent residence in the Village-Kheluapara in Bongaigaon district.
9. She has stated that her father's name is Kapasu Sheikh and mother's name is Phool Bhanu Nessa and the name of both the parents of the petitioner were recorded in the voter list of 1966 of Village-Kheluapara Part 2 under 43 No. Bongaigaon Legislative Assembly Constituency the then Goalpara district, (now Bongaigaon District).
10. She has also stated in her written statement that name of her parents are also included in the voter list of 1970 in respect of Village-Kheluapara Part 2 under 43 No. Bongaigaon Legislative Assembly Constituency in erstwhile Goalpara district, (now Bongaigaon district). She has also stated in her written statement that she was married to on
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.
In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish a direct bloodline connection to an Indian ancestor. Identity documents are not conclusive proof of citizenship, and....
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.
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.