SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 283

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH CURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ
Beli Bewa D/o Late Shelku Sk - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 7 Ors - Respondent
WP(C)/4457/2018
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:MD H R AHMED, MR. A ISLAM Advocate
For the Respondent: ASSTT. S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION

IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Citizenship Act, 1955 - Writ petition challenging the opinion of Foreigner's Tribunal declaring the petitioner as a foreigner post-1971 - The petitioner claimed citizenship by birth based on voter lists from 1959, 1966, and 1970 - The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish citizenship and ruled that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner. (Paras 2 , 7 , 10 , 18 , 20 )

(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of proof regarding citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, as established in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India - Mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof. (Paras 16 , 17 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigner's Tribunal based on insufficient evidence linking her to her parents, despite her claims supported by voter lists and testimonies. (Paras 2 - 6 )

Findings of Court:

The Tribunal's opinion was upheld, stating that the petitioner failed to prove her citizenship, and the evidence presented was inadequate. (Paras 18 , 20 )

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could prove her citizenship and if the Tribunal's findings were perverse. (Paras 12 , 19 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner, and the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish her citizenship. (Paras 16 , 18 )

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

M. Nandi, J

Heard Md. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms.A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, FT Matters; Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel, CGC; Mr. H. Kuli for A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. P. Sarmah, Additional Senior Govt. Advocate and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC.

2. By filing this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ against the impugned opinion dated 09.01.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal (6), Bilasipara, Dhubri in F.T.6th /DBB/593/2017, whereby the petitioner has been declared as foreigner of post 1971.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the father’s name of the petitioner is Shelku Sk, mother’s name of the petitioner is Mohuron Bibi. The parents’ name of the petitioner has been enrolled in the voter list of 1959 and father’s name of the petitioner has also appeared in the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 under 36 Bilasipara Assembly Constituency, Vill. Barshi Pt.II, P.S. Bilasipara of the then Goalpara District (now-Dhubri).

4. The petitioner got married with one Kalam Sk of village Barshi Pt.II, P.S Bilasipara under Dhubri district of Assam about 40 years back. But, after 10 years of her marriage, husband of the petitioner expired. Out of their wedlock, three children were born namely, Bellal Uddin Sk, Habeja Begum and Nasibin Begum. The name of the petitioner has been appeared in the voter list of 1997 in the aforesaid address.

5. Subsequently the petitioner had shifted to Nalbari village under Kokrajhar district about 15 years back i.e. in the year 2002. The letter ‘D’ was put against her name in the voter list at Nalbari village. The Local Verification Officer (LVO) has submitted verification report in the prescribed format to the Electoral Registration Officer without giving any comment in which stream the petitioner was suspected as foreigner and most of the column of the report are kept blank. The LVO report itself would go to show that there was no enquiry before submitting the report. As such, on that ground alone, the entire proceeding is vitiated and the matter required a fresh enquiry. But the ERO has forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri for further action. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri made the reference to the Foreigner’s Tribunal, Dhubri for its opinion.

6. Accordingly, the learned member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, 6th Dhubri, Bilasipara issued notice to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid F.T. case asking her to appear before the Tribunal and to file written statement with supportive documents. Accordingly, the petitioner filed her written statement denying the allegation made in the reference and enclosed voter lists of 1959, 1966, 1970 in respect of her parents. Moreover, the elder brother-in-law of the petitioner also adduced evidence stating that the petitioner is his younger sister- in-law, he knew the proceedee since her birth but the written statement, evidence and the documents were not duly considered by the learned Tribunal and passed the impugned order declaring the petitioner as foreigner. Hence, this writ petition.

7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was born at village Barshi (now Barshi part II) under Dhubri district in the year 1955 which is substantiated from the voter list of 1977 and deposition of his brother in law. As such, as per provisions of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India by birth.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner exhibited as many as four documents i.e. voter lists of 1959, 1966, 1970 in respect of her father and voter list of 1997 of her own and those were duly proved with original as revealed from the records. The evidence of the petitioner was not controverted by the State during the proceeding and as such, the same was duly accept


            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top