IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of reliable evidence to establish citizenship claims and the burden of proof on the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Ms. R.S. Deuri, 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 Musstt. Lal Bhanu @ Lalbhanu Nessa has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, quashing the opinion/order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Member of Foreigners’ Tribunal (1st) Mangaldai in connection with F.T. Case No. 3057/2011, declaring the petitioner as a Foreigner/Illegal Migrant, who had entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.

3. The genesis of the case was that the Superintendent of Police (Border) (SP for short), Mangaldai, Darrang through the Reference Case No. 134/2010 expressed his doubt over the nationality of Lal Bhanu, wife of Md. Jarif Ali (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). Thereafter, F.T. Case No. 3057/2011 was registered and notices were issued to the petitioner, who entered appearance and filed written reply/written statement (WS for short) along with photocopies of documents, denying that she is a foreign national. To substantiate her stance, the petitioner also filed evidence-in-chief on affidavit and submitted documents, and examined herself as DW-1.

4. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred while assessing oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner by not taking into consideration Exhibit Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and by discarding Annexure-1 without assigning any valid reasons. It is contended that the decision of the Tribunal holding that the Voters List of 1966 is a voters list of another person which has been picked up by the petitioner to establish her lineage with her projected grandfather is perverse and is thus, liable to be set aside. It is averred that the Tribunal has failed to assess the evidence and other materials on record in its proper perspective and has discarded the documentary evidence without any valid grounds and without verifying the documents from the issuing authority.

5. It is contended that the impugned order/opinion has infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined in the Constitution of India, in violation of the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Thus, this is a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the impugned opinion/order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sirajul Hoque Vs. State of Assam, (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 611 wherein it has been held that:

“3. We have heard learned counsel for both sides extensively and have gone through the documents produced by the appellant ourselves. On a perusal of the same, we find that a number of documents have been relied upon by the appellant starting with a voters’ list of his grandfather Kematullah in village Sotobashjani. There is no doubt that the great grandfather’s name Amtullah appears as Amtullah throughout the document. Equally, there is no doubt about the father’s name which appears as Hakim Ali throughout. The only discrepancy found is that in some of the documents Kefatullah later becomes Kematullah. However, what is important to note is that his father’s name Amtullah continues as Amtullah and the other family members associated continued as such. Also produced are NRC Registration details of the year 1971 of the grandfather who is noted to be Kefatullah in this document. Other voters lists are then produced where the letter F becomes the letter M with other family names remaining the same. In fact, the appellant has himself produced