THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Mazitan Nessa @ Mazidan Nessa W/o- Md. Majibar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. Nandi, J.
Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.T.,Khan for Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned opinion dated 10.11.2020 in F.T. Case No. BNC/D/1222/2016 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Tezpur 5th , Biswanath Chariali, wherein the petitioner was declared foreigner of post 1971.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was born and brought up at village Balidubi under Behali P.S (Now Ginjia) in the district of Biswanath (the then Tezpur), Assam. After her marriage, she was enlisted in voter list with her husband namely, Majibar of Niz Baghmari village of Biswanath district.
4. According to the petitioner, her father’s name was late Mukshed Ali whose name appeared in the voter list of 1959 onwards. And her father’s name was also recorded in the Patta, Jamabandi and Revenue record. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the name of her brother Soyed Badshah appea
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 burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
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 in citizenship claims rests on the petitioner; credibility of evidence must be crucial to establish status under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies on the claimant, and mere inclusion in voter lists does not suffice as admissible evidence to establish citizenship.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, particularly under the Foreigners' Act, and the petitioner failed to establish her claims adequately.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, and mere document production is insufficient without proper evidence.
Discrepancies in names should not automatically render evidence inadmissible, particularly when live witnesses can corroborate lineage, requiring fair procedural questioning.
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.