KALYAN RAI SURANA, KARDAK ETE
Md. Sahjahan Ali S/o Late Morjatali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
1. Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent no. 1. Mr. J. Payeng, learned special counsel for the Home Department, representing respondent nos. 3, 6 and 7, Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. advocate appearing for respondent no. 3. None appears on call for respondent no. 5.
2. By an opinion dated 25.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 2nd Nagaon in F.T. Case No. 820/2011, bearing S.P. Ref. IMDT Case No. 393/2002, the petitioner, Sahjahan Ali, was declared to be a foreigner who has entered into India after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory i.e., Bangladesh. The said opinion has been assailed in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The case record was called for and received from the learned Tribunal. The case record reveals that the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon had lodged an FIR which was registered as IM(D) T Case No. 393/2002 dated 29.06.2002, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner was an illegal migrant. In this connection, the Inquiry Officer (I.O. for short) who was the then S.I.
Abdul Matali v. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 2 GauLT 617
Abdul Khalique v. Union of India & Ors. 2013 (1) GauLT 941
Chandrabhan Singh v. Janaki Singh
Motior Rahman v. State of Assam & Ors
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple
Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India
Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam and Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 534
Shyamlal @ Kuldip v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (2009) 12 SCC 454
Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 665
The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to establish citizenship, highlighting procedural fairness and the burden of proof on the individual asserting citizenship.
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.
Point of Law – Indian Citizenship – Proof of - onus is on the procedee to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.
Merely because documents were collected by petitioner during pendency of reference, it cannot be a ground to ignore same as documents have to be examined as regards the genuineness, authenticity, rel....
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 under section 9 of the Foreigners' Act 1946 is on the petitioner to establish citizenship, and minor discrepancies in documents must be explained to substantiate the claim.
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 lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
Point of Law : Foreigner – Matter remitted back - no new evidence other than those permitted above can be produced before the Tribunal.
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.