IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Maleka Khatun D/o Late Mohammad Khan @ Mohammad Ali – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1966 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2024
(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Burden of proof lies on the person asserting citizenship - The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Tribunal for failing to prove her citizenship despite presenting various voter lists and documents - The Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence provided, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not establish her lineage to Indian parents. (Paras 9, 32, 36)
(B) Citizenship - The petitioner claimed citizenship based on her parents' names in voter lists from 1966 and 1970 - The Tribunal held that mere presence in voter lists does not confer citizenship, and discrepancies in names and ages raised doubts about the petitioner's claims. (Paras 18, 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Maleka Khatun, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, asserting that her parents were Indian citizens based on their names in historical voter lists. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support her claims.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her citizenship, leading to her declaration as a foreigner who entered Assam post-1971 without valid documents.
Issues: The main issues included the burden of proof regarding citizenship and the validity of the evidence presented by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish her citizenship, and discrepancies in the evidence presented were significant enough to warrant the Tribunal's decision.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
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 Barpeta LAC in the State of Assam. Her mother’s name is recorded in the 1966 voter-list as Sopiya Khatun at Serial No. 342 and same house number as her father. In the 1970 voter-list, the name of her father appeared at Serial No. 445, House No. 117, in the same village and the Police Station in the LAC. Her mother’s name appeared in 1970 voter-list as Sapiya Khatun wife of Mohammad at Serial No. 446 with the same house number. In the 1989 voter-list, the name of petitioner’s father is recorded as Mohammad Ali Khan at Serial No. 85, House no. 276 with the same village and LAC. Her mother’s name is recorded as Sokiya Khatun wife of Mohammad Ali Khan at Serial No. 86 and House No. 276. In the 1997 voter-list, petitioner is recorded as Maleka Khatun, daughter of Mohammad at Serial No. 103, House No. 32, village-Kumullipara, Mouza-Ghilazari, Police Station-Barpeta. Her mother’s name is recorded as Sofiya Khatun wife of Mohammad at Serial No. 104 of the same voter-list. Since the father of the petitioner died before 1997, his name is not recorded in the 1997 and onwards voter-list.
4. The petitioner contended that she was born and brought up in the Kumullipara village and married at village Galia, where she has been casting her vote since 1989. After soil erosion in the village Galia by Beki River, she has shifted to her paternal home, where she has enrolled herself as a voter in the year 1997. However, she has been marked as “D” voter in the Galia village voter list of 1997. She claims that in the voter list of 2011, her name has been recorded as Maleka Khatun, daughter of Mohammad Ali at Serial No. 124, House No. 32, in the village Kumullipara under 43 Barpeta LAC. Her mother’s name is recorded as Sofiya Khatun Bidhoba, wife of Mohammad Ali at Serial No. 123, House No. 32 in the same voter list of 2011. Her husband’s name is recorded as Magrab Ali, son of Toraf Ali at Serial No. 125. She contends that her mother’s name has been recorded as Sofiya Khatun Bidhoba, as her mother was a widow and in Assamese Bidhoba means widow.
5. A Reference No. 220 of 2015 under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, was made against the petitioner, namely, Maleka Khatun, wife of Magrab Ali, village Kumullipara, P.S. Howly, District-Barpeta, stating that the petitioner/proceedee could not furnish the relevant documents as to her citizenship when such an enquiry was conducted against her and therefore, suspected to be an illegal migrant. On such reference, FT Case No. 24/2016 was registered.
6. The petitioner filed a written statement on 29.04.2016, Examination-in-Chief on affidavit and depositions of the petitioner/proceedee as DW-1, deposition of Safia Khatun as DW-2 and deposition of Magrab Ali as DW-3.
7. The petitioner/proceedee has exhibited as man
Basiron Bibi vs. Union of India & Ors. 2018 (1) GauLT 372
Bhanwaroo Khan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 346
Hazara Khatoon vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5) GauLR 471
Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India and Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 665
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....
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.