KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Mohammad Ali S/O Late Ahsad Ali @ Arshad Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar learned CGC for respondent no.1, Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2, Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the F.T. matters appearing for respondent nos. 3, 6 and 7, Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5th, Morigaon, in Case No. F.T.(C) 281/2016 [F.T.(C)1330/12 (old), arising out of IM(D)T case no.565/2001 dated 27.09.2001], by which the petitioners were declared to be foreigners who have entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that along with his written statement, the petitioner had submitted the voters list of 1965, 1970, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1997, 2017, certificate of Govt. Gaonbura, Ulubari, Solmari, Sonarigaon. Moreover, alongwith the ad
Aziz Miya @ Aziz Mia v. Union of India & Ors.
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. v. Bikartan Das & Ors.
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Ors.
State of Assam & Ors. v. Moslem Mondal
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and failure to produce evidence can lead to a declaration of foreigner status.
The Foreigners Tribunal must adhere to due process and cannot declare family members as foreigners without proper reference and sufficient evidence.
The court established that a Foreigners Tribunal must have a proper reference to exercise jurisdiction over individuals, ensuring due process in citizenship determinations.
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
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 on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which was not met due to insufficient evidence linking her to her claimed lineage.
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 burden of proof to establish citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the evidence presented must be cogent and relevant. The certiorari jurisdiction o....
The petitioner failed to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as the presented documentation was insufficient and lacked proper verification.
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.