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
| 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)
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.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
Learned Tribunal is required to re-examine the issue by taking into consideration explanation offered by petitioner about discrepancy and pass a fresh opinion as regards citizenship status of petitio....
The burden of proof concerning citizenship rests with the individual, and significant discrepancies in documentation can undermine one's claim of citizenship.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which must be supported by reliable evidence and proper documentation.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies on the person asserting it, requiring credible evidence of lineage and personal knowledge.
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.