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) 1012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Sufiya Khatun W/o Abul Hussain - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5398 of 2024
Decided On : 21-05-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : M.U. Mahmud, B. Chetia, D. Bora, S. Islam, M. Saikia, S.H. Mahmud

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Tribunal. Evidence presented was contradictory, including discrepancies in birth dates and relationships, affecting credibility. Voter lists and land documents produced were insufficient to establish citizenship. The Tribunal's findings on the untrustworthiness of the evidence were upheld. (Paras 38-42)

(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of proof in Foreigners Tribunal cases lies on the petitioner, who must provide credible evidence of citizenship, as discussed under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. (Paras 20, 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged her declaration as a foreigner, presenting various documents and witness testimonies to establish her Indian citizenship. However, evidence was found lacking and contradictory, notably regarding her birth year and family relationships, undermining claims. (Paras 2-36)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the Foreigners' Tribunal, concluding that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove the petitioner's citizenship status and that the Tribunal's ruling was not interfered with. (Paras 38-42)

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence presented to establish citizenship and the credibility of documents provided by the petitioner. (Paras 38, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required under the Foreigners Act. Furthermore, the findings of the Tribunal were supported by credible evidence. (Paras 39-42)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. counsel representation in court hearings. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's claim of indian citizenship origins. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. evidence presented by the petitioner supporting citizenship. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal arguments in support of citizenship claim. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19)
5. legal arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 16)
6. counterarguments regarding evidence validity. (Para 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. evidence requirement for citizenship claims. (Para 23)
8. issues with documentary evidence for citizenship. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
9. inconsistencies in petitioner’s claims. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
10. legal standards of evidence and burden of proof. (Para 36 , 38)
11. court's agreement on tribunal's findings. (Para 39 , 41)
12. final decision on petitioner's citizenship status. (Para 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate; Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned CGC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, FT matters.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.06.2018, passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 10th, Barpeta in F.T Case No.35/2017, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner of post 1971.

3. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner put her appearance before the Tribunal and contested the case by filing written statement wherein she stated that she is a bonafide and genuine citizen of India by birth. She was born and brought up at Village – Bhulukabari in Barpeta district. One Mahammad Ali is the father of the petitioner whose name has been appeared in the voter lists of 1965 and 1970 from village – Bhulukabari under 53 No. Sarukhetri LAC.

4. The name of the petitioner has been appeared in the voter’s lists of 1985 and 1989 from village – Kaljhar along with her husband. It is also stated in the written statement that the name of the petitioner’s father has been appeared in a registered sale deed of land vide Deed No.55, covered by Patta No.92, Dag No.172 dated 04.01.1966 of village – Bhulukabari. Written statement has also disclosed that the petitioner has produced two gaonburah certificate for residential status and linkage purpose which were issued by gaonburah of village - Bhulukabari and Kaljhar.

5. In support of her written statement, the petitioner also examined herself as DW-1, her projected brother Julhas Ali as DW-2 and DW-3- Gaonburah of Village - Bhulukabari. The petitioner has exhibited some documents vide Ext.A - voter list of 1965, Ext.B - Registered sale deed of land, Ext.C - Voter list of 1970, Ext.D - voter list of 1989, Ext.E and Ext.F – Certificates of gaonburah.

6. In her cross-examination, DW-1 replied that her date of birth is 05.05.1960 but she has no birth certificate. She was born in village – Bhulukabari. Her father late Mahammad Ali expired three years back at Bhulukabari. The name of her mother is late Sajitan Nessa and she expired about four years back at Bhulukabari. The name of her parents were enlisted in the voter lists of 1965 and 1970. The name of her grandfather is late Gopal Sarkar but she did not know the name of her grandmother. She could not recollect when they died. The petitioner got married to one Abul Hussain of Kaljhar in the year 1981.

7. Similarly, DW-2, projected brother of the petitioner also supported the statement of the petitioner as above. According to him, his name has been appeared in the voter list of 1997 along with other family members from village – Bhulukabari vide Ext.G. He has also exhibited his Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) vide Ext.H

8. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that he was born in the year 1972 but he could not recollect his date of birth and he was born at village - Bhulukabari under Barpeta

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