Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Md. Abdul Kadir S/o Lt. Hasen Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. P. Phukan, learned CGC for the Union of India; Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India; Mr. Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT Matters and N.R.C.; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate.
Challenge in this writ petition:
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioners have assailed the opinion dated 21.09.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 5th, Morigaon, in Case No. FT (C) 192/2016 (New) [corresponding to F.T.(C) 1286/2012 (Old), arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 353/1999]. By the said opinion, the petitioners were declared to be foreigners of after 25.03.1971.
Case of the petitioners before the Foreigners Tribunal:
3) In brief, the case of the petitioners is that upon service of notice, the petitioner no. 1, namely, Abdul Kadir had entered appearance before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement and contested the proceeding by denying that the petitioners were foreigners and claimed that all were Indian citizens. The petitioner no.
The Foreigners Tribunal must adhere to due process and cannot declare family members as foreigners without proper reference and sufficient evidence.
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.
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
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 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 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 burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and failure to provide credible evidence results in a declaration of foreigner status.
Illegal immigrant - Declaration as foreigner - petitioner's father and his grandfather were in-possession of certain property in Assam before 1971 - corroborating evidences to show that the petitione....
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 for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, and mere electoral roll entries are insufficient without corroborating evidence.
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
