Back
KALYAN RAI SURANA, KARDAK ETE
Amzad Talukdar @ Amzad Ali S/O Subhan Ali Talukdar @ Subhan Talukdar @ Subhan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT matters, representing respondent nos. 2 and 4; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.5; and Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for respondent no.6.
2. The opinion dated 23.07.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 14/2017 [arising out of IM(D)T Ref. Case No. 5233/98], thereby answering the reference by holding the petitioner to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, has been assailed by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. On reference being made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, alleging that the petitioner, Amzad Ali, son of Sobhan of Village- Purbalowashur, P.S. Barpeta in the district of Barpeta is a foreigner, proceedings was registered as F.T. Case No. 14/2017. On receipt of notice, the petitioner had entered app
Discrepancies in names do not invalidate evidence of family identity; established family connections must be considered in determining foreigner status.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and failure to provide credible evidence results in a declaration of foreigner status.
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 court established that the burden of proof in citizenship cases lies with the petitioner, but the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence presented.
Discrepancies in names should not automatically render evidence inadmissible, particularly when live witnesses can corroborate lineage, requiring fair procedural questioning.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
Procedural fairness requires strict adherence to established legal protocols, and the tribunal's failure to follow these mandates necessitates remand for reevaluation of the case.
The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to establish citizenship, highlighting procedural fairness and the burden of proof on the individual asserting citizenship.
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
