Back
KALYAN RAI SURANA, KARDAK ETE
Maleka Khatun D/o Late Mohammad Khan @ Mohammad Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC for the respondent no. 1; Mr. P. Pegu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, respondent No. 2; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel for the Home Department, respondent Nos. 3 & 5 and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4. None appears for respondent No. 6.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order/opinion dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 10, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 24/2016, by which, the petitioner/proceedee, Maleka Khatun has been declared foreigner of a post 1971 stream thereby, directed to be pushed back to the specified territory.
3. The case projected by the petitioner is that her parents are citizens of India by birth. The names of her father and mother are recorded in the 1966 voter-list. The name of her father Md. Mohammad Khan son of Nandu is recorded at Serial No. 341, House No. 117, Part No. 15, village-Kumullipara, Mouza-Ghilazari, Police Station-Barpeta, under 50 number Bar
The burden of proof for citizenship lies on the individual asserting it, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to a declaration of foreigner status.
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 lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
A foreigner's status must be proven by credible and verifiable evidence linking them to claimed Indian ancestors; mere appearances in voter rolls are insufficient.
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 court established that the burden of proof in citizenship cases lies with the petitioner, but the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence presented.
Citizenship requires establishing a direct, consistent bloodline linkage to an ancestor present before the specified cut-off date. Documentary evidence, such as voters' lists and residential certific....
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
In citizenship determination proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the individual to establish ancestral linkage through consistent, corroborated documentary evidence. Mere production of documents....
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
