Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Beauti Begum – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's examination of the decision-making process. (Para 3 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments regarding failure to appear and lawyer's fault. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. respondents' refutation of petitioner's claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. principles governing writ of certiorari. (Para 16) |
| 6. burden of proof lies on the proceedee in nationality cases. (Para 17 , 19 , 21) |
| 7. dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merit. (Para 22) |
| 8. consequences of the tribunal's opinion. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
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 24.04.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal Jorhat in F.T.G. (D) 474/2010. By the impugned opinion, the petitioner who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971. As per the projection made in the petition, the aforesaid order is an ex parte one.
2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act remains with the individual, regardless of representation, and failure to provide evidence justifies a tribunal's determination of foreign n....
The burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee, and documents submitted must be proved in accordance with the law.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the proceedee, and failure to contest leads to the presumption of foreign nationality.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee, and the Writ Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the decision-making process.
The burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining the decision-making process.
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.
The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the proceedee under the relevant statute. In writ jurisdiction, the court acts in a supervisory capacity and will not interfere with factual findin....
The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the individual. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the court will not re-evaluate evidence or substitute its findings for those of the tribun....
The burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner lies upon the said person under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would not be applicable.
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
