Back
M. R. PATHAK, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Hanufa Khatun W/o- Achin Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.P. Khaund, J)
Heard Mr. P.K. Roychouhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, learned CGC for the respondent No. 1, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel representing the Home Department of Government of Assam, respondent Nos. 2 and 4, Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India, respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the opinion dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 11th , Barpeta at Sorbhog in Case No. (Bpt/11th ) F.T. 712/2016 whereby the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of post 1971 stream.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of India and she is a voter at village – Puthimari under 40 No. Sorbhog LAC in the district Barpeta and as such, the Election Commission of India issued an Elector Photo Identity Card in her favour. Aadhaar Card was also issued in her favour by the Government of India. I
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing and proper verification of identity before declaring someone a foreigner, reaffirming the principles of natural justice.
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.
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 citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
The judgment reinforces the necessity of adequate evidence in citizenship claims and the implications of procedural lapses in legal proceedings.
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 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 under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 requires individuals to establish their Indian citizenship, including proving linkage with projected parents and grandparents.
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
