MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Nirakul Sarkar S/o Late Paresh Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 & 4, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioner Sri Nirakul Sarkar has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, or certiorari or any other appropriate writ and set aside the impugned order/opinion dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st) at Morigaon, Assam in F.T. (D) Case No. 229/2006. The Union of India, Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam - Home Department, Deputy Commissioner - Morigaon, the Superintendent of Police (SP for short) - Morigaon, Commissioner - Assam State Election Commission, the State Coordinator of NRC and the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a layman and a
The judgment reinforces the necessity of adequate evidence in citizenship claims and the implications of procedural lapses in legal proceedings.
The burden lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
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 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 proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign nationality.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, and mere document production is insufficient without proper evidence.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
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, and failure to establish this results in the presumption of foreign status under the Foreigners Act.
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.