IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique, S/o Md. Mechar Ali - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 11 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 1837 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's citizenship claim and background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 17) |
| 2. arguments challenging the tribunal's findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. testimony and evidence discrepancies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. burden of proof on the petitioner. (Para 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 35) |
| 5. court's final orders and dismissal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Nandi, J.
Heard Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the CGC; and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.
2. Though the case is fixed for admission, however, with the consent of both sides, the matter is taken for final disposal.
3. Vide this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order/opinion dated 06.03.2025, passed in F.T. Case No.700/2015 by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
4. The case of the petitioner as projected before the Tribunal is that he is the son of Md. Macher Ali @ Mechar Ali and Fuljan Bibi @ Fuljan Necha. His grandparents were Sonaullah Seikh @ Sonaulla and Moussamat Nessa. The petitioner was born on 01.01.1988 at village – Katdanga under South Salmara Police Station in the district of Dhubri, Assam.
5. A reference has been made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (B), City, Guwahati against the petitioner suspecting him to be a foreigner from Bangladesh who had entered into Assam/India illegally after 25.03.1971. Accordingly, a case has been registered vide F.T. Case No.700/15. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the petitioner has appeared and contested the case by filing written statement wherein he stated that the name of his grandparents appeared in voter list of 1966. Similarly, in the NRC enquiry data for the year 1951, the name of the grandfather and grandmother of the petitioner are also reflected against village – Mohurichar, P.S – South Salmara, district of Dhubri. The said NRC entry for the year 1951 was issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (B) on 17.08.1987.
6. It is also stated in the written statement that the grandparents of the petitioner casted their vote in the year 1970/1971. The father of the petitioner was born on 01.10.1961 at village – Katdanga. In the similar way, the names of the parents of the petitioner were recorded in the voter lists of 1997 and 2005. After being eligible for casting vote, the name of the petitioner was inserted in the voter lists for the first time in the year 2015 and 2023 along with his parents Mechar Ali and Fuljan Necha from Jaleswar Legislative Assembly of village –Kholisavita Hindupara in Golapara district.
7. In the course of trial, the petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and one Mechar Ali as DW-2. The petitioner has also exhibited the following documents before the Tribunal vide Ext.1 – NRC document, Ext.2 - voter list of 1966, Ext.3 - voter list of 1970/1971, Ext.4 - voter list of 1997, Ext.5 -voter list of 2005, Ext.6 -voter list of 2015, Ext.7 - voter list of 2023, Ext.8 - Final result of NRC of the applicants. In his evidence-in-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the same thing whatever stated in his written statement.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer had never visited the residence and village of the petitioner and never asked the petitioner to produce any document to prove his Indian citizenship at any point of time before making the reference/forwarding the case to the learned Tribunal. The Enquiry Officer in form no.1 dated 04.08.2015 opined that the petitioner was not available in the address given before the Enquiry Officer but it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner had illegally entered into Assam/India on or after 25.03.1971. As such, there was no f
[Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim Vs. State of Assam]
Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India
The burden of proof concerning citizenship rests with the individual, and significant discrepancies in documentation can undermine one's claim of citizenship.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
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 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 for citizenship lies on the claimant, and mere inclusion in voter lists does not suffice as admissible evidence to establish citizenship.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
The burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish their citizenship status, and reliable and cogent documentary evidence is required to prove citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof lies solely on the individual. Oral testimony of relatives, without corroborating admissible documentary evidence, is insufficient to establish linkage....
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.