Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Joynal Talukdar @ Joynal Abdin Son Of Late Mokesed Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. A.W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Barpeta 11th, in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1536/2017, corresponding to P.E. No. IM(D)T Case No. 5391(A), dated 3/8 (sic.), by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner.
3. At the outset, it is seen that though the opinion was passed on 25.03.2021 in a contested proceedings, this writ petition has been filed on 20.12.2024. Accordingly, the issue of maintainability of the challenge on account of delay is also required to be taken up.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by order dated 10.01.2025, the records of the Tribunal is received. The learned counsel for both sides given ample opportunity to examine the records.
5. As per the records, notice to the petitioner was
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship, including providing adequate documentary evidence of lineage and continuous residence, which he failed to do.
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his citizenship, resulting in the court upholding the Foreigners Tribunal's declaration of him as a foreigner.
A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and failure to provide credible evidence results in a declaration of foreigner status.
The petitioner failed to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as the presented documentation was insufficient and lacked proper verification.
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 burden of proof lies on the individual to establish their citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and presenting reliable and verified evidence is crucial to prove citizenship status.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
A foreigner's status must be proven by credible and verifiable evidence linking them to claimed Indian ancestors; mere appearances in voter rolls are insufficient.
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
