IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, Manish Choudhury
Altar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
This review petition under Chapter-X of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is preferred seeking review of an Order dated 10.05.2019 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2853/2019.
2. The events leading to the passing of the Order dated 10.05.2019 can be recapitulated, in brief, at first.
2.1. A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police [Border], Baksa under Section 2 [1] of the Foreigners [Tribunals] Order, 1964 to the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa at Tamulpur [‘the Tribunal’, for short] on the ground that on being asked, the proceedee-opposite party, that is, the petitioner could not produce within given time any documentary evidence in support of his entry into India prior to 25.03.1971, though he claimed to be a citizen of India. The reference was made to the Tribunal for its opinion as to whether the proceedee-opposite party-petitioner was a foreigner or not.
2.2. On receipt, the reference was registered as F.T. Case no. 17/BAKSA/2018. After registration, the Tribunal issued notice to the proceedee-opposite party-petitioner [hereinafter also re
Harpal Singh and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
M.M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala and another
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others
Board of Control for Cricket in India and another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others
Sirajul Hoque vs. State of Assam and others
Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India and others
T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and another
Hari Bishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and others
Shivdev Singh vs. State of Punjab
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma
Union of India and others vs. B. Valluvan and others
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies on the petitioner, and a review petition cannot be used to reargue the case based on previously dismissed evidence.
A review petition must show an error apparent on the record or new evidence; the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner under the Foreigners Act.
The scope of review under Article 226 is limited to correcting procedural errors or new evidence; re-evaluating merits is not permissible.
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish their citizenship, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Review petitions must demonstrate a material error on record; the mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a re-hearing of one's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition is not maintainable unless there is an error apparent on the face of the records.
The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the claimant, and review petitions cannot be used to challenge merits unless clear errors or new evidence arise.
Review petitions must demonstrate clear errors or new evidence; mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings is insufficient for review.
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.