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
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 Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta forwarded the case to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bajali for adjudication. The case was registered vide F.T Case No.381/2017. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement. In his written statement, the petitioner stated that he is a labour by profession. In his absence the Enquiry officer took his name and no enquiry was made to know his original identity and in support of his citizenship. But Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta referred the case suspecting the opposite part
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.
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.