Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Joytan Bibi, W/o. Nousad Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Department Of Home – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K.R. Surana, J.)
Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned CGC for the Union of India; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC and Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Jaytan Bibi, has assailed the opinion dated 08.11.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.(8th), Dhubri in FT Case No. 8/149/GKJ/2015, bearing FT Case No. 4645/GKJ/2011, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 5917/98, by which she was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
3) On receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had filed her written statement on 19.12.2015 and claimed that she was a genuine citizen of India and there was no reasonable ground to declare her as foreign national. She had stated that before her marriage with Nausad Ali of village- Kaimari Part-V, she was residing with her parents at village- Shilghagri, under Boxirhat P.S., Dist. Coochb
A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.
The petitioner failed to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as the presented documentation was insufficient and lacked proper verification.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship, including providing adequate documentary evidence of lineage and continuous residence, which he failed to do.
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his citizenship, resulting in the court upholding the Foreigners Tribunal's declaration of him as a foreigner.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
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.
A foreigner's status must be proven by credible and verifiable evidence linking them to claimed Indian ancestors; mere appearances in voter rolls are insufficient.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and failure to produce evidence can lead to a declaration of foreigner status.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
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
