Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Md. Ekramul Hussain Son Of Md. Idrish Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
(S.K.Medhi, J.)
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 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar in F.T. (D) Case No. 1550/2015 corresponding to Case No.F.T./H/3178/2012 arising out of S.P. (B)’s F.T. Case No.377/2010. 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. 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 follows:
(i) The reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T.(D) Case No.1550/2015 corresponding to Case No.F.T./H/3178/2012 arising out of S.P. (B)’s F.T. Case No.377/2010.
(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner was duty bound to file written statement to prove his citizenship. Though at least 5 date
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 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 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 on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
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 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 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 citizenship rests solely on the individual, as mandated by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and failure to participate in proceedings results in the declaration of foreigner status.
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
