Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Maya Rani Sarkar, D/o. Dhirendra Mandal @ Dhiren Chandra Mandal, W/o. Harihar Sarkar @ Harihari Sarkar @ Haricharan Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through- The Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abayapuri, in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No.257/2016, corresponding to BNGN IMDT Case no. 506/2003, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
3. Upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and filed her written statement in defence and took a plea that she is a citizen of India. It was stated that the father of the petitioner, namely, Dhirendra Mondal, along with his father, late Budheswar Mondal, had migrated from the then Maimansingha district of East Pakistan to India and their names were entered in the Refugee and Rehabilitation Department and they were issued a “
Discrepancies in names should not automatically render evidence inadmissible, particularly when live witnesses can corroborate lineage, requiring fair procedural questioning.
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 citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and failure to provide credible evidence results in a declaration of foreigner status.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, and mere document production is insufficient without proper evidence.
The court established that the burden of proof in citizenship cases lies with the petitioner, but the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence presented.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which was not met due to insufficient evidence linking her to her claimed lineage.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which must be supported by reliable evidence and proper documentation.
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
