Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MALASRI NANDI
Jahura Khatun @ Jahura Bewa @ Jahura Begum, D/o. Lt. Jowaher Ali @ Jaher Ali @ Joher Ali, W/o Lt. Khalilur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, rep. By Its Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Deptt. Of Home – Respondent
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
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.
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.
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
