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) 1085

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 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. M R KHANDAKAR, MR. A ROHMAN
For the Respondent: DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI, GA, ASSAM, SC, NRC, SC, F.T

The burden of proof concerning citizenship rests with the individual, and significant discrepancies in documentation can undermine one's claim of citizenship.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal regarding the citizenship status of the petitioner - The Enquiry Officer's assessment was deemed faulty for failing to adequately investigate the petitioner's claims of citizenship - The burden of proof lies with the individual asserting citizenship and the discrepancies in documentation were critical in determining the outcome. (Paras 13, 25, 36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, suspected to be a foreigner, contested the proceedings based on familial voter records dating back to 1966 and claims of continuous residence since birth in Assam. (Paras 4, 7, 10)

Findings of Court:
There existed significant discrepancies in the petitioner's documentary evidence concerning his lineage and parental identification, leading to uncertainty regarding his citizenship claim. (Paras 36, 39)

Issues: The core issue revolved around whether the Tribunal's opinion, based on evidential documentation, is to be upheld or overturned due to perceived procedural inconsistencies. (Paras 13, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner hadn't met the burden of proof necessary to establish his citizenship; substantial discrepancies in age and identity within the presented documents raised doubts about the legitimacy of his claims. (Paras 33, 36)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

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

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