Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conditions for filing a review in court. (Para 1) |
| 2. review petition seeks recapitulation of facts. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on the review petition's context. (Para 3 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25) |
| 4. previous tribunal decisions must be respected during reviews. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. arguments for grounds of review summarized. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. evidence standards required for citizenship claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. implications of nrc inclusion on citizenship review. (Para 30 , 32) |
| 8. final dismissal of the review petition. (Para 36) |
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
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.
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
