MALASRI NANDI, KALYAN RAI SURANA
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 vote
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.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, necessitating sufficient documentary evidence to counter claims of foreigner status.
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.