THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Romjan Ali @ Romjan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate; and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for ECI.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 29.05.2017, passed by the th learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.5 , Morigaon in Case No. FT(D) 522/2016 (new) [corresponding to FT(D) 206/2011 (old)], arising out of D/N Case No. 1070/98 dated 18.06.1998. By the impugned opinion, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, who has entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on receipt of summons from the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had filed his written statement, inter alia, stating that the investigation and enquiry was made on the basis of false information. It was also stated that the petitioner was born and brought up at village- Moirabari in the pre
Motior Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Haidar Ali v. Union of India & Ors.
Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) v. Union of India & Ors.
Basiron Bibi v. Union of India & Ors.
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India
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.
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
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 burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign nationality.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
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 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....
Point of Law : Merely because of certain discrepancy in the name would not render a person to be liable to be declared as a foreigner.
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.