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
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 in F.T. Case No.130/2016 [corresponding to Police Reference “D” Case No.2990/98, declaring the petitioner as foreigner].
3. The petitioner’s case, in brief is that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth. The petitioner inadvertently did not append her own voter list before the learned Tribunal but exhibited some other relevant documents to link her with her projected parents. It is also the case of the petitioner that the name of her father has been reflected in the voter lists of 1966 and 1970. Her elder brother and sisters had also casted their votes in their respective constituency.
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.
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.