Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Musstt Moriom @ Moriom Nesa W/o- Md. Roshid @ Abdul Rashid – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tribunal's order on citizenship (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's claims and evidence of citizenship (Para 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding evidence fulfillment. (Para 7) |
| 4. respondent's objections to citizenship claims (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. necessity of documentary evidence for citizenship (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. judicial observations on land records and parentage (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. validity of gaon panchayat certificates (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. failure to prove citizenship links (Para 20 , 23) |
| 9. court's dismissal of the writ petition (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Nandi, J
Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, F.T.; Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel appears on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.
2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.02.2023, passed by the learned member, Foreigners Tribunal 4th, Nagaon, Juria, Assam
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, necessitating sufficient documentary evidence to counter claims of foreigner status.
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 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 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 proving citizenship lies with the individual, and failure to establish this results in the presumption of foreign status under the Foreigners Act.
Point of Law : Tribunal would be required to reassess evidences in terms of the observations made above and give a fresh opinion as regards citizenship status of the petitioner.
The court upheld that a petitioner must provide adequate and credible evidence to substantiate claims of citizenship, failing which the claim will be dismissed.
The burden of proof lies on individuals claiming citizenship, requiring credible evidence of lineage and prior existence in the country, as emphasized in the Foreigners Act.
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
