SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 880

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Jahura Khatun @ Jahura Bewa @ Jahura Begum, D/o. Lt. Jowaher Ali @ Jaher Ali @ Joher Ali, W/o Lt. Khalilur Rahman – Petitioner 
Versus
The Union Of India, rep. By Its Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Deptt. Of Home and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3507 Of 2020
Decided On : 30-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.U. Ahmed, Mr. W. Rahman
For the Respondent: Asstt. S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI

The burden of proof for citizenship lies on the claimant, and mere inclusion in voter lists does not suffice as admissible evidence to establish citizenship.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Challenge to opinion of Tribunal declaring petitioner as illegal migrant - Petitioner contended that her name appeared in voter lists almost consistently since 1966; however, the Tribunal dismissed her evidence and opinion claimed discrepancies in documentation - The High Court reiterated that it lacks jurisdiction to interfere unless there was a perverse finding. (Paras 18, 36)

(B) Burden of Proof - The onus lies with the petitioner to prove her citizenship claim and the inadequacies of evidence presented, including voter lists being inadmissible to establish citizenship right, were noted. (Paras 15, 32)

(C) Jurisdictional Limits - The court reiterated that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not sit as an appellate court to reweigh evidence but may intervene on matters of law. (Paras 18, 51)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship asserting a long-established presence in Assam based on voter lists and familial connections, contradictorily, the Tribunal deemed this insufficient to overturn the presumption of illegal migration, thus dismissing the application.

Findings of Court:
The findings of the Tribunal were upheld, concluding that the evidence by the petitioner did not satisfy the legal burden required to verify citizenship.

Issues: Main issues included the legitimacy of evidence for citizenship claims and the extent of jurisdiction for appeal by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence provided by the petitioner was insufficient to overturn the Tribunal's opinion as it did not reach the threshold of admissible evidence per legal standards.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim of citizenship. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments supporting citizenship claim. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. respondent's opposition to citizenship claim. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. scope of writ jurisdiction under article 226. (Para 18)
5. analysis of documentary evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. witness testimony and contradictions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. legal implications of land and inheritance. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
8. legal standards for proving citizenship and evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. finality of tribunal's findings. (Para 36 , 37)
10. dismissal of the petition. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

(M. Nandi, J.)

Heard Mr. K.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT matters; Ms. S. Baruah, learned counsel for CGC; Mr. M. Islam appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order/opinion of the Tribunal dated 25.02.2020, whereby the petitioner was declared as illegal migrant who entered into India from specified territory i.e. Bangladesh.

3. One FT case was initiated against the petitioner by the State and on receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta and filed her written statement along with some documents in support of her claim of Indian citizenship. She also adduced 4 (four) nos. of witnesses and exhibited some documents. After hearing the parties, the case was decided against the petitioner by impugned opinion dated 25.02.2020. Hence, this petition for setting aside the impugned opinion as above.

4. In her written statement, the petitioner stated that she was born on 09.06.1967 and brought up at village – Namberpara, Part II , P.S - North Salmara under the then Goalpara district. Her grandfather’s name was Karim Miah and grandmother’s name was Kulson Bibi, her father’s name was Joher Ali @ Jowaher Ali and mother’s name was Jinnatjan Nessa @ Jindi Nessa @ Jinda Nessa @ Jinnat Nessa, who were the Indian citizens.

5. It is also stated in the written statement that the petitioner has 3 (three) brothers and 5 (five) sisters including the petitioner namely Anowara Khatun, Atowar Rahman, Laily Khatun, Nazrul Islam, Jeleka Khatun, Jahura Khatun i.e. the present petitioner, Julhash Ali and Sahera Khatun. However, Anowara Khatun and Atowar Rahman had expired. At present, the petitioner’s 1 (one) brother Nazrul Islam has been residing at village – Namberpara under Goalpara district and another brother namely Julhash Ali has been residing at Howly town, Barpeta.

6. It is further stated in the written statement that the name of the petitioner’s parents and elder brothers appeared in the voter lists of 1966, 1970, 1985, 1989 from village - Namberpara under Goalpara district. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner shifted to Howly town, Barpeta wherein 1 (one) brother of the petitioner i.e. Julhash Ali has been presently residing.

7. From the written statement of the petitioner, it also discloses that on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner got married to one Khalilur Rahman on 08.07.1992 by executing a kabinnama. However, the petitioner’s husband had expired on 31.12.1999 and death certificate was issued by the office of Joint Director of Health Services, Kokrajhar.

8. According to the petitioner, her name has appeared in the voter lists of 1993 and 1997 along with her husband from village Joypur. And in the voter lists of 2005, 2013 and 2018, her name has also been appeared from the said village Joypur.

9. The petitioner also adduced her evidence-on-affidavit and has reiterated the same thing whatever stated in her written statement and exhibited the following documents -

i) Ext. A – Voter list of 1966

ii) Ext. B – Voter list of 1970

iii) Ext. C – Voter list of 1985

iv)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top