Back
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Bishambar Mandal, S/O Late Thakur Das Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through-The Ministry of Home Affairs, Griha Mantralaya, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos.2 and 6. Also heard Mr. H. Kuli, learned Counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India namely the respondent No.3; and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No.3.
2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Bishambar Mandal, (2) Smti Adavi Mandal @ Adavi Biswas, (3) Niranjan Mandal @ Nira Mandal, (4) Nibaran Mandal, (5) Smti Prabhati Mandal @ Prabhati Biswas, and (6) Smti Ranu Mandal @ Ranu Biswas impugning the opinion/order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon in FT(C) Case No. 706/2010, whereby, the above-named petitioners were declared as foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. We have perused the case record of FT(C) Case No. 706/2010, which was requisitioned in connection with the instant writ petition from the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon.
4. On perusal o
The court established that a Foreigners Tribunal must have a proper reference to exercise jurisdiction over individuals, ensuring due process in citizenship determinations.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and failure to produce evidence can lead to a declaration of foreigner status.
The burden of proof lies on the individual asserting citizenship, requiring documentary evidence to establish lineage and citizenship, as per Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946.
Point of Law : Merely because the name of a person does not appear in all voters list, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the presence in India when there are other clear evidence as in the present ....
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 proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The judgment underscores the critical need for accurate identification and credible evidence in citizenship determinations under the Foreigners Act.
The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the evidence presented must be cogent and relevant. The certiorari jurisdiction o....
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
