Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Surzya Bhanu @ Suriya Bhanu W/o Rofiqul Hussen – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters; Mr. H.K Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel, CGC.
2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned opinion dated 15.10.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta in F.T. Case no.189/16, whereby the petitioner has been declared as foreigner of post 25.03.1971.
3. The case of the petitioner is that a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta against the petitioner under the IM(D)T Act vide reference case No.4451/98 suspecting that the petitioner is a foreigner. Accordingly, the said reference was forwarded to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, Barpeta for registering a case against the petitioner and thereafter, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner asking her to submit written statement along with supporting documents to prove that she is an Indian Citizen.
4. On receipt of the n
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, particularly under the Foreigners' Act, and the petitioner failed to establish her claims adequately.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and mere production of documents is insufficient without proper proof.
The burden of proof concerning citizenship rests with the individual, and significant discrepancies in documentation can undermine one's claim of citizenship.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring substantial evidence of birth and residence, and mere document production is insufficient.
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 for establishing citizenship lies with the individual, requiring substantial evidence beyond mere 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 for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
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
