Back
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Abdul Mazid, S/O Late Abdul Latif – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 6 and 7; Mr. P Sharma, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3, as well as Mr. T. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No. 4.
2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Abdul Mazid, son of Abdul Latif, impugning the opinion/order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 10th, Shankardev Nagar, Hojai in FT(D) Case No. 1674/2017, whereby the petitioner was declared as a foreigner who has illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. On perusal of the record of FT(D) Case No. 1674/2017, which was requisitioned in connection with the instant writ petition from the concerned Tribunal, it appears that suspecting Md. Abdul Mazid (the petitioner) to be an illegal migrant, an inquiry was initiated against him. During the inquiry, it was found that the petitioner, Abdul Mazid, was suspected
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 with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
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 lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
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 lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which was not met due to insufficient evidence linking her to her claimed lineage.
The burden of proving citizenship lies on the individual claiming it, necessitating admissible and reliable evidence to establish linkage with parents.
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....
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.
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
