THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Sukurjan Nessa Alias Sukuron Nessa, D/o., Lt. Ardash Bepari, W/o.- Kurban Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Home Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M. Nandi, J.)
Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.U.K. Goswami, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, FT matters; Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate.
2. By filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 02.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Bongaigaon in Case No. vide BNGN/FT/3230/09 [reference IM(D)T Case No.656/01], declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971.
3. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and submitted her written statement wherein she stated that she is a citizen of India by birth. The name of the petitioner’s father recorded in the voter lists of 1966 and 1970. The petitioner has purchased the plot of land in the year 1981 wherein the name of the petitioner’s father has been reflected.
4. The written statement also disclosed that the petitioner got married to one Kurban Ali in the year 1979. In the year 1983, she gave birth to a male child. After one year of birth of a child, she
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, necessitating sufficient documentary evidence to counter claims of foreigner status.
The court emphasized that documentary evidence is essential to establish citizenship claims under the Foreigners Act, and mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
The burden of proof in citizenship claims rests on the petitioner; credibility of evidence must be crucial to establish status under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The burden of proof lies on the individual asserting citizenship to establish their linkage with legacy persons and provide evidence based on personal knowledge. Documentary evidence alone may not su....
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, and failure to establish this results in the presumption of foreign status under the Foreigners Act.
The court reinforced that under the Foreigners Act, the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual, and failure to provide adequate evidence results in the presumption of foreignness.
The burden of proof for citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies with the proceedee, and insufficient evidence leads to the presumption of foreigner status.
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 on the claimant, and mere inclusion in voter lists does not suffice as admissible evidence to establish citizenship.
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.