Back
M. R. PATHAK, MITALI THAKURIA
Anowara Khatoon – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
M.R. Pathak, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No.2. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department Assam for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 as well as Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No.6.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 19.12.2023 challenging the ex-parte order dated 23.12.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa at Tamulpur, Assam in F.T. Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019 whereby, she was declared to be a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into the territory of India from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971.
3. Earlier, on 20.12.2023, the records in original of said F.T. Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019 were called for from the said Tribunal that has been accordingly placed before the Court and we have perused the same.
4. Brief facts of the case is that the Superintendent of Police (Border), Baksa vide communication No. BSA/B/27/10/755-769 dated 08.09.2010 in F.T. Case No. 571/2010 referred the matter under Order 2 (1) of the Foreig
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and failure to participate in proceedings results in the declaration of foreigner status.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the proceedee, and failure to contest leads to the presumption of foreign nationality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the service of notice must be proper, and the rejection of a prayer for vacating an ex parte order should not be merely on technical grounds.
The burden of proving citizenship rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act remains with the individual, regardless of representation, and failure to provide evidence justifies a tribunal's determination of foreign n....
The court emphasized the importance of natural justice in citizenship determinations, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to prove Indian citizenship due to procedural irregularities and heal....
The Tribunal's proceedings were invalid due to lack of authorization, requiring annulment of the ex parte order.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and opportunity to be heard in nationality proceedings, ruling that lack of notification constituted a denial of due process.
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
