KALYAN RAI SURANA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Idorjan Bibi @ Iyedijan Bibi W/o Meher Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.]
This writ petition is directed against the opinion dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 6th Dhubri at Bilasipara, district Dhubri. By the impugned opinion, the Foreigners’ Tribunal, 6th Dhubri answered the reference made before it in affirmative against the petitioner holding that the petitioner/proceedee is a foreigner who came to Assam on or after 25.03.1971.
In respect of the petitioner’s name appearing in the voters list, there was a mark “D” indicating that the petitioner could be a doubtful voter meaning thereby that there is a suspicion that the petitioner is not a genuine citizen of India.
2. The State pursuant to an enquiry made on information received that the petitioner is a suspected foreigner, made a reference before the Foreigners’ Tribunal for an opinion as to whether the petitioner is or is not a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. Upon receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared and duly contested the matter. She filed her written statements denying the allegations made in the reference. She submitted her evidence-in-affidavit as D.W.-1. She exhibited five (5) documents before the Tribuna
Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India
State of Assam and Others vs. Moslem Mondal and Others reported in 2013 (1) GauLT 809
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, and mere documentation is insufficient without proper admissibility and proof.
The burden of proof for citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies with the proceedee, and insufficient evidence leads to the presumption of foreigner status.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
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 under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 requires individuals to establish their Indian citizenship, including proving linkage with projected parents and grandparents.
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.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, particularly under the Foreigners' Act, and the petitioner failed to establish her claims adequately.
The court affirmed the Tribunal's authority in assessing the evidence required to establish citizenship under the Foreigners' Act, emphasizing the necessity of substantial proof.
The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies on the individual, and reliable and cogent documentary evidence is required to prove citizenship.
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.
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.