THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Sumari Nessa W/o. Md. Dilbahar Sk - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 5 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 3876 / 2018
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging Tribunal's opinion on citizenship - Petitioner failed to prove her citizenship, having not established a link with her parents despite producing voters' lists and other documents - Tribunal's findings deemed justified. (Paras 2 , 4 , 19 , 21 )
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of proving citizenship rests on the proceedee as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is critical in proceedings under the Foreigners Act. (Paras 19 , 20 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed citizenship based on her father's name appearing in voters' lists from 1966 and 1970, but the Tribunal found her documentation insufficient to prove her link to her parents or her citizenship status. (Paras 3 , 4 , 5 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish her citizenship, affirming the Tribunal's opinion that she is a foreigner. (Paras 21 , 23 )
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal's opinion that the petitioner is a foreigner was perverse or unjustified. (Para 9 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not discharge her burden of proof regarding her citizenship and that the Tribunal's decision was justified, adhering to the established legal framework. (Paras 21 , 22 )
Result: Writ petition dismissed and the opinion of the Tribunal affirmed.
JUDGMENT
M. Nandi, J
Heard Mr. U. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, FT Matters; Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. T. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. GA and Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the opinion dated 02.04.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.5, Goalpara, in F.T. Case No. F.T./5/343/MA/16 arising out of IM(D)T Reference Case No.423/04, whereby it was held that the proceedee/petitioner herein is a foreigner of post 1971.
3. The case of the petitioner is that her father being an eligible voter had been enlisted in the voters’ list of 1966 and 1970 in no.45 Goalpara LAC of the then Goalpara district. Petitioner was born and brought up at Buduchar village under Matia Police Station in Goalpara district of Assam. She was given into marriage with one Md. Dilbahar Sheikh of Nigam Shantipur village under Matia Police Station. On attaining majority, her name has been enrolled in the voter list of 1989 along with her husband and other members of her in-laws family. Thereafter, her name was continuously being appeared in the subsequent voters’ lists. However, suspecting her enrollment in the voters’ list of Goalpara East LAC, petitioner has been proceeded with under the provision of Foreigners’ Act, 1946.
4. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner had appeared before the concerned Tribunal and filed her written statement. Thereafter, she had adduced her evidence and her uncle Amzad Ali also adduced evidence in order to corroborate her evidence. Certain documents were also exhibited i.e. voters’ list of 1966, 1970, 1989, 1997 and copy of the land documents and gaonburah certificates. However, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal did not rely on the documents submitted by the petitioner and opined that the petitioner is a foreigner and entered into Assam after 1971.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the father of the petitioner is Chandu Sk and mother is Bahatun Nessa and in support of her claim, the petitioner has produced the voters’ list of 1966, 1970, 1989 and 1997 and the land documents. But as per reference, the name of the father of the petitioner has been shown as Mahammad Ali instead of Chandu Sk which has been reflected in the written statement submitted by the petitioner. As such, the observation made by the Tribunal is perverse that the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that Mahammad Ali is her father.
6. By referring the judgment of the State of Assam and Ors vs. Moslem Mondal and Ors reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 , the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed in detail about the manner in which an investigation is to be carried out by the Investigating Officer and the referral authority before making a reference to a Tribunal for adjudication.
7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since there is doubt about the actual name of the father of the petitioner, therefore, the learned Tribunal before passing impugned order dated 02.04.2018, ought to have called the Investigating Officer who had conducted the alleged investigation. Since there is irregularity/doubt in this regard, so the same needs to be interfered with by this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. On the other hand, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, FT Matters has contended that though the petitioner stated that she is the daughter of Chandu Sk and Bahatun Nessa by relying on the voters’ list of 1966, 1970 and 1979 but she has failed to prove the link with her projected parents that she is their daughter and by producing such documents, it is not proved that she is a citizen of Ind
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, and failure to establish this results in the presumption of foreign status under the Foreigners Act.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
The court reinforced that under the Foreigners Act, the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual, and failure to provide adequate evidence results in the presumption of foreignness.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring substantial evidence of birth and residence, and mere document production is insufficient.
The judgment reinforces the necessity of adequate evidence in citizenship claims and the implications of procedural lapses in legal proceedings.
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.
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 establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
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.