IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Sufiya Khatun W/o Abul Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
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 – Kalj
Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.
Kynremri Lyngdoh Vs. State of Meghalaya
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 proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
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 lies with the individual asserting it, requiring substantial evidence of birth and residence, and mere document production is insufficient.
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 citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, particularly under the Foreigners' Act, and the petitioner failed to establish her claims adequately.
The burden of proof on individuals asserting citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, and the need for documentary evidence and verification of contents to establish citizenship.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
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.