IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, Malasri Nandi
Intaj Mandal Alias Intaj Ali, S/O Late Ektar Ali Mandal @ Ektar Mandal @ Ektar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Secy. To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
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, wh
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 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 lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship, including providing adequate documentary evidence of lineage and continuous residence, which he failed to do.
A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
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 on the proceedee to establish Indian citizenship, the requirement of continuous stay, and the evidentiary value of documents are crucial legal principles established in the judgme....
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of reliable evidence to establish citizenship claims and the burden of proof on the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Point of Law : 12, 16. Under Section 9 of Foreigners' Act, 1946, burden is on proceedee to prove that she is not a foreigner, but a citizen of India and this burden never shifts.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign nationality.
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.