Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Md. Ali Hussain @ Md. Ali Hussain S/o Late Abdul Jabbar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. The petitioner in this case is Md. Ali Hussain @ Md. Ali Hussain, who is aggrieved by the opinion dated 29.04.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal Morigaon 3rd in Case No. F.T. (C) 259/2015 and Reference I.M. (D) T. Case No. 90/2002, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.
2. It is contended that the petitioner is an Indian citizen and his father Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar was a permanent resident of Village - Goroimari, P.S. – Laharighat, Laharighat LAC, District – Nagaon.
3. After 1984, the petitioner’s father shifted base to Thanagara Revenue village – Charabari, Mouza – Dhadua, P.S. – Morigaon, which is a village adjacent to Khatarbari and both the villages Charabari and Khatarbari, after demarcation falls under Charabari village.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner was born at village – Thanagara (Charabari) under Morigaon Police Station. From the Voter ID issued by the Election Commission of India, the petitioner’s address is recorded as Khatarbari Charabari, Morigaon.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner’s name figures in the voters’ list of 1997, 2005, 2010 and 2019 in
The burden lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner, who failed to establish lineage and continuous residency prior to the cutoff date, resulting in the declaration as a foreigner.
Point of Law : 12, 16. Under Section 9 of Foreigners' Act, 1946, burden is on proceedee to prove that she is not a foreigner, but a citizen of India and this burden never shifts.
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 judgment reinforces the necessity of adequate evidence in citizenship claims and the implications of procedural lapses in legal proceedings.
The burden of proof under section 9 of the Foreigners' Act 1946 is on the petitioner to establish citizenship, and minor discrepancies in documents must be explained to substantiate the claim.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies on the person asserting it, requiring credible evidence of lineage and personal knowledge.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign 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
