Back
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.
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.
A quasi-judicial authority violates the principles of natural justice when it assumes the role of both prosecutor and judge. Specifically, the presiding officer of a tribunal conducting the cross-exa....
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....
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
