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.

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 29.09.2023 st st passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, 1 , Lakhimpur in F.T. (1 ) Case No.1341/2011 (District No. 307/2009). By the impugned order, the petitioner, who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, has been declared to be a foreigner post 24.03.1971.

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), Lakhimpur District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. Case No. 1341/2011 (District No. 307/2009).

(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 along with certain documents and had claimed to be an Indian Citizen by birth.

(iii) The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 had come to a finding that the petitioner, as opposite party had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 24.03.1971.

3. We have heard Shri A Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri G Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam & NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Ms. S Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri SS Roy, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 25.09.2025.

4. Shri Sattar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could prove his case with cogent evidence which the learned Tribunal should have accepted the said proof and accordingly hold the petitioner to be a citizen of India. The petitioner had adduced evidence by himself and has relied to the following documentary evidence:

(i) Residential Certificate of the projected mother by U.P. Government, dated 20.09.2013 (Ext. -1);

(ii) Death Certificate dated 08.02.2012 of projected father (Ext. – 2);

(iii) Order dated 24.01.2014 of the learned Tribunal pertaining to the projected brother (Ext. – 3) and

(iv) Electoral Roll of 2008 (Ext. – 4).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such evidence ought to have been accepted by the learned Tribunal which would have been sufficient to hold the petitioner as a citizen of India. He has contended that the petitioner is an illiterate person and was not aware as to how the proceeding should have been contested and the evidence adduced along with the exhibits would establish that he is a citizen of India. He has further submitted that under Order 3(1) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964, grounds are to be given followed by a reasonable opportunity which was not done in the instant case.

6. Per contra, Shri G Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department has categorically refuted the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the p