Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Amina Begum @ Amina Khatun @ Aminjan Bibi W/o Ibrahim Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC for respondent no. 1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT, Border matters and NRC, for respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no.6 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.4.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Amina Begum @ Amina Khatun @ Aminjan Bibi, has assailed the opinion dated 27.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa at Tamulpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 94/Baksa/2017, corresponding to S.P.(B) Nalbari Reference: IM(D)T Case no. 1788/2003, by which she was declared to be a foreigner who has illegally entered into India on or after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.
3. On receipt of notice, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal and had filed her written statement, projecting that her father is Acharuddin Ali @ Achuruddin @ Acharuddin Sheikh @ Afchor Uddin, who was born in India at village- Salmara, Mouza- Kumarikata, P.S. Tamulpur, in Baksa dist
The court emphasized the importance of thoroughly evaluating evidence in citizenship claims, particularly in light of related familial cases and ensuring all relevant documents and statements are con....
Claimants asserting citizenship must substantiate their claims with credible evidence, failing which their claims may be dismissed as seen in foreigner cases.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
The court affirmed that citizenship claims must be substantiated by credible documents demonstrating lineage to ancestors present in India prior to 1971, rejecting mere assertions.
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 petitioner failed to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as the presented documentation was insufficient and lacked proper verification.
The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to establish citizenship, highlighting procedural fairness and the burden of proof on the individual asserting citizenship.
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.
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
