Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Alema Khatun @ Amela Khatun Wife of Nur Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.)
Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters, respondent nos.2 and 6; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the NRC, respondent no.4; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent no.5. None appears on call for the Union of India.
2. It is noted that the petitioner has arrayed the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6th , Barpeta as respondent no.3. As the order of the said learned Tribunal has been assailed, the said learned Member is neither a necessary party nor an appropriate party in this writ petition. Accordingly, the name of respondent no.3 is ordered to be struck off, however, without disturbing the seriatim of the respondents.
3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 09.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6th , Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 491/15, arising out of R/Case No. C/6415/98, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who has entered Assam on or after
The Foreigners' Tribunal's failure to consider crucial evidence and procedural irregularities necessitates remand for a fresh decision.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, voiding tribunal decisions due to gross irregularities including back-dated orders and improper evidence handling.
The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to establish citizenship, highlighting procedural fairness and the burden of proof on the individual asserting citizenship.
Discrepancies in names do not invalidate evidence of family identity; established family connections must be considered in determining foreigner status.
Procedural fairness requires strict adherence to established legal protocols, and the tribunal's failure to follow these mandates necessitates remand for reevaluation of the case.
A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
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
