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.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. A. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Choudhury, learned CGC, Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and N.R.C.; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State.

Challenge in this writ petition:

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 30.03.2022, passed by the th learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (10 ), Barpeta, in FT Case No. 188/2017 [arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 1927(B)/98], thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who has entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971.

Case of the petitioner before the Foreigners Tribunal:

3) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that after service of notice of the proceeding, he had appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement. The petitioner had denied that he was a foreigner and claimed that his parents were Indian citizens.

4) In his written statement, the petitioner had stated his defence, which is in consonance with the statement made in her evidence-on-affidavit. Accordingly, the contents of the written statement are not reproduced.

5) The petitioner has examined himself as DW-1 and had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) certified copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.A); (ii) certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B); (iii) certified copy of voter list of 1975 (Ext.C);(iv) certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.D); (v) certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.E); (vi) certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.F); (vii) Photocopy of Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext.G) and (viii) Identity Card issued by Gaonburah of Domani and Bejegaon Pathar (Ext.H).

6) The petitioner’s projected brother, namely, Muktar Mandal @ Muktar Ali was examined as DW-2, had re-exhibited the documents already exhibited by the petitioner as Ext.A to Ext.H respectively.

Submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

7) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the documentary evidence of the petitioner in its proper perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusion for which the impugned opinion was not sustainable on facts and in law.

8) It was submitted that the LVO report did not contain anything to show that the petitioner was a foreigner and therefore, the investigation carried out against the petitioner was not fair. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner was not provided with the grounds to suspect him as a foreigner and thus, the proceeding against the petitioner was bad in law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of State of Assam & Ors. v. Moslem Mondal & Ors., 2013 (1) GLT 809.

9) The relevant paragraph 97 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner isquoted below:-

Moslem Mondal (supra):

97. Fair investigation and fair trial being the basic fundamental/human right of a person, which are concomitant to preservation of the fundamental right of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, there has to be a fair and proper investigation by the investigating agency before making a reference to the Tribunal. In such investigation the attempt has to be made to find out the person against whom the investigation is made, so that the person concerned is given the opportunity to demonstrate at that stage itself that he is not a foreigner. In case the person concerned could no