The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, requiring credible evidence to substantiate claims.

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 notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and submitted her written statement along with the relevant documents before the Tribunal. In her written statement, the petitioner stated that she was born and brought up at village Taparbori under Barpeta district of Assam. After attaining majority, the petitioner got married to one Rofiqul Hussain, son of late Hazrat Ali of village Dhanbandha of Barpeta district. It is also stated in the written statement that the name of the father of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1966, 1970 of village Taparbori under Barpeta LAC. After the death of the father of petitioner, the mother of the petitioner shifted from Taparbori village to Dhanbandha village under 43 No. Barpeta LAC. The gaonburah issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner.

5. During the proceeding in the Foreigners’ Tribunal, the petitioner submitted and exhibited the following documents:

a) Voter list of 1966 in respect of the parent of the petitioner vide Exhibit A.

b) Voter list of 1970 in respect of father of the petitioner vide Exhibit B.

c) Voter list of 1977 in respect of mother of the petitioner vide Exhibit C.

d) Voter list of 1993 in respect of petitioner and her mother vide Exhibit D.

e) Voter identity card vide Exhibit E.

6. The petitioner was examined herself as DW-1 and DW-2 and DW-3 are the projected brothers of the petitioner. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned opinion declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. Hence, this writ petition.

7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Section 3(1) of Citizenship Act, 1955, it has been specifically stated that every person born in India:

a) on or after 26^th day of January, 1950 but before first day of July, 1987;

b) on or after 1st day of July, 1987 but before the commencement of Citizenship (Amendment Act, 2003) and either of whose parents are citizens of India at the time of his birth;

c) on or after the Citizenship (Amendment Act, 2003) were –

i) Both of his parents are citizen of India, ii) One of whose parents is a citizen of India and other is not illegal migrants at the time of his birth, shall be citizen of India by birth.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner as DW-1 deposed that she was born and brought up in Taparbori village in Barpeta district of Assam. The name of the parents of the petitioner is Hakim Ali and Hajiran Nessa. The said statement of the petitioner has not been controverted by the State respondent. It is well settled law that unless the pleadings and document are not controverted in the proceeding, the same would amount to admission but the learned Tribunal passed the impugned opinion without considering the above proposition of law and which i