Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MALASRI NANDI
Abul Kashem @ Abdul Kashem, S/o. Late Joinuddin – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By The Secretary To The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's family and citizenship background. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the tribunal's order. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence presented. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. discussion of the evidence presented by the petitioner and responses from the tribunal. (Para 15) |
| 5. contradictions in evidence and statements. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. burden of proof lies with the petitioner regarding citizenship. (Para 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. decision to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
(M. Nandi, J.)
Heard Ms. T. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT matters; Ms. P. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bajali in F.T. Case No.381/2017, declaring the petitioner as foreigner who entered into India after 25.03.1971.
3. A police reference case was made against the petitioner. The
The court reinforced that under the Foreigners Act, the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual, and failure to provide adequate evidence results in the presumption of foreignness.
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 court emphasized that documentary evidence is essential to establish citizenship claims under the Foreigners Act, and mere oral testimony is insufficient.
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 lies on the individual asserting citizenship to establish their linkage with legacy persons and provide evidence based on personal knowledge. Documentary evidence alone may not su....
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring admissible and reliable evidence to counter claims of foreign status.
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 for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
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
