The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, and mere electoral roll entries are insufficient without corroborating evidence.

ORDER :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. J. Sarmah, learned CGC, Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters, Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt.Advocate and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 11.06.2018, passed by the nd learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 2 , Morigaon, Assam in Case No. F.T. 06/17, arising out of Police Reference F.T. Case No. 12/2017, dated 18.02.2017 by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant.

3. On being served with a notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement on 17.04.2018, wherein it was stated that the case registered against the petitioner was false and baseless and there was no doubt that the petitioner had illegally entered in India without any valid documents and it was stated that the case was registered without examining any document and without any proper investigation. The petitioner had specifically denied every statement made in the report against him. The petitioner had stated that he is an Indian citizen and was born at Lelaibori village under Laharighat Police Station in the District of Morigaon and his name was enrolled in the electoral roll of 2005 and thereafter, he has been casting his vote till date. He had stated that before that, his father was residing at Village Goraimari under Laharighat Police Station and as the said village was eroded by the river Brahmaputra, his father started to permanently reside in the present Lelaibori village and that the name of his father was enrolled in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 and he has Gaonbura certificate issue by the local Gaonbura.

4. The petitioner claimed that he had sufficient document to prove his Indian nationality and accordingly, he had prayed to exonerate him from the proceedings. The examination in chief of the petitioner was recorded in note by the learned Tribunal on 14.05.2018, wherein he had reiterated that he was born in village Lelaibori under Laharighat Police Station and he had taken his education in Lelaibori L.P School and studied High School at Goroimari High School. His father’s name was Md. Ali (deceased) and name of his deceased grandfather was Late Sahed Ali. He had stated that his father cast his vote in the year 1966 and continuing to cast his vote till his death in the year 2013. He had stated in the name of his mother is Sultun Nessa. He had cast his vote for the first time in the year 2005 and he was exercising his franchise till then he was a citizen of India by birth. He had exhibited 6 documents in support of his bail, viz., (i) Voter list of 1966 in the name of my father and grandfather (Ext.1), (ii) Copy of my voter ID card (Ext.2), (iii) Certificate issued by Gaon Bura (Ext.3), (iv) School certificate of Garaimari High School issued by the Head Master on 14-11-18 (Ext.4), (v) Domicile certificate issued by Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 12-6-18 (Ext.5) and (vi) Medical certificate of death of Mohamad Ali dated 30-4-13 (Ext.6)

5. It would be relevant to mention here that responding to the Court query, the petitioner had stated before the learned Tribunal that he was born on 02.04.1988 and that he had not submitted his birth certificate or any land documents of his parents and grandparents prior to 1966. He had not submitted any voter list of his father after 1966 and prior to his death and he had not obtain any death certificate of his father from the authorities under the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969. He has 4(four) brothers and 2(two) sisters. His mother was alive and he has not submitted any voter list of his mother.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for th