Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Gobinda Saha @ Chandrahas Saha S/o Jogesh Saha – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging opinion of foreigners tribunal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of witness examination and documents presented. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. the credibility of supporting testimonies must match exhibited documents. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. discrepancies noted in the record-keeping. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. decision remanded for fresh consideration due to errors. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. final order and direction for re-examination. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.6.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 15.10.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 1st, Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. 2541/2011, arising out of S.P(B) Ref. Case No. 130/98 (D), thereby answering the reference against the pet
Discrepancies in record-keeping by a tribunal can vitiate the judicial process, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
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.
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.
A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.
The Foreigners' Tribunal's failure to consider crucial evidence and procedural irregularities necessitates remand for a fresh decision.
The court held that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible documentation under the Citizenship Act, which she failed to do.
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his citizenship, resulting in the court upholding the Foreigners Tribunal's declaration of him as a foreigner.
The Foreigners Tribunal must adhere to due process and cannot declare family members as foreigners without proper reference and sufficient evidence.
Discrepancies in names should not automatically render evidence inadmissible, particularly when live witnesses can corroborate lineage, requiring fair procedural questioning.
Point of Law : Section 9 provides that the onus of proof can shift depending on nature of evidence laid by a party. Since it is the responsibility of proceedee to lay evidence to show that he or she ....
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
