IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Musstt Bhanu Nessa @ Bhanu Nessa, W/o. Md. Hazarat Ali @ Hazrat Ali, D/o. Lt. Hatem Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. By The Secy. To The Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rajesh Mazumdar, J)
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.P.S. Bhattachayya, learned CGC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, ECI, Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner assailing the opinion dated 24-05-2022 rendered in BNGN/FT-2/APR/612/2017 in connection with BNGN IM(D)T No. 218/2003 and BNGN/FT- 2/APR/34/2020 in connection with BNGN IM(D)T No. 892/2002. The two cases before the learned Tribunal had originated from two separate references made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Bongaigaon. The two references were then transferred to the FT, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri in connection with provisions of Foreigners Tribunal Act, 1946 read with Foreigners Tribunal Orders, 1964. Both the references were amalgamated for a combined proceeding. The writ petitioner received notices to appear before the Tribunal. Accordingly, she appeared and filed her written statement cl
The court upheld that a petitioner must provide adequate and credible evidence to substantiate claims of citizenship, failing which the claim will be dismissed.
The court emphasized that documentary evidence is essential to establish citizenship claims under the Foreigners Act, and mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The burden of proof lies on the individual asserting citizenship to establish their linkage with legacy persons and provide evidence based on personal knowledge. Documentary evidence alone may not su....
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, necessitating sufficient documentary evidence to counter claims of foreigner status.
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere documentation.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which must be supported by reliable evidence and proper documentation.
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 court reinforced that under the Foreigners Act, the burden of proving citizenship rests with the individual, and failure to provide adequate evidence results in the presumption of foreignness.
The burden of proof for citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies with the proceedee, and insufficient evidence leads to the presumption of foreigner status.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring admissible and reliable evidence to counter claims of foreign status.
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.