Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHASUND
Saraf Uddin S/o. Lt. Abdul Jabbar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Rep. By tThe Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of India, Deptt. Home – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1.The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the opinion rendered vide impugned order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Morigaon in F.T.(D) Case No. 426/16. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner, who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971.
2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:
(i) The reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T.(D)
Case No. 426/16.
(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner had filed the written statement dated 16.07.2016 along with certain documents and had claimed to be an Indian Citizen. He had adduced evidence as DW1 and there are two other witnesses, namely, a neighbour as DW2 and a cousin as DW3.
(iii) The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9
The burden of proof rests on the individual claiming citizenship, and failure to provide credible evidence results in designation as a foreign national under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under the Foreigners Act, 1946; insufficient evidence can lead to a declaration of foreignness.
The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies solely with the individual under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and must be met with sufficient evidence, without relying on rebuttal evidenc....
The burden of proving citizenship lies entirely on the proceedee, and failure to provide cogent and reliable evidence results in a declaration of foreign nationality under Section 9 of the Foreigners....
The burden of proof lies with the individual claiming citizenship, under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, requiring cogent evidence to substantiate the claim.
The burden of proving citizenship is on the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Writ Court does not review factual determinations of the Tribunal unless procedural impropri....
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship rests solely on the individual, as mandated by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 lies upon the person claiming citizenship, and the evidence presented must be supported by documentary evidence and contemporaneous rec....
The burden of proof for establishing Indian citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and a writ court does not interfere with factual findings of a Tribunal.
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
