Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Md Safique Kuraishi S/O- Late Latif Kuraishi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs – 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 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 pe
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 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.
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 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 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 proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under the Foreigners Act, 1946; insufficient evidence can lead to a declaration of foreignness.
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 to establish citizenship lies on the proceedee, and the admissibility of evidence is crucial.
The burden of proof regarding citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies solely with the proceedee, and failure to meet this burden results in their classification as a foreigner.
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
