Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Md. Jafar Ali @ Zafar Ali Son of Rajab Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This application under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 227 has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners’ TribunalBongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri in connection with Case No. BNGN/F.T.Case No. 3189/2007 arising out of F.T. Reference Case No. : FT 362/2007.
2. Md. Jafar Ali @ Zafar Ali will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.The Union of India, the Election Commission of India, the State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department, the District Commissioner-Bongaigaon, the Superintendent of Police (B)-Bongaigaon[SP(B)in short], the Co-ordinator, National Register of Citizens, Bhangaghar, Guwahati, are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
3. It is submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner’s father and uncle being citizens of India, the petitioner was declared a foreigner, who entered into India from Bangladesh illegally after 25.03.1971. His father and uncle had contested a proceeding initiated by the IM(D)T, Goalpara and an order dated 12.03.2001 was passed and the petitioner’s father and un
The court emphasized the importance of natural justice in citizenship determinations, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to prove Indian citizenship due to procedural irregularities and heal....
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the proceedee, and failure to contest leads to the presumption of foreign nationality.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and opportunity to be heard in nationality proceedings, ruling that lack of notification constituted a denial of due process.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, and mere electoral roll entries are insufficient without corroborating evidence.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and failure to participate in proceedings results in the declaration of foreigner status.
A person shall be deemed to be of an Indian origin, if he, or either of his parents or of any of his grandparents was born in undivided India and as such, these provisions of Section 6A would cover p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper evaluation and appreciation of evidence in determining citizenship claims, as well as the application of the burden of pro....
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
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
