Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SHAMIMA JAHAN
Jaygun Bibi, W/o. Md. Ibrahim Ali, D/o. Ambaj Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By The Secy. To The Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B.Sarma, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no. 3; and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no.5.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 21.06.2016, passed by nd the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (2), Morigaon, Assam, in Case No. F.T.(D) 1189/11 [Police Ref. D/N Case No. 175/97 dated 15.12.1997, arising out of E.R.O. Ref. No. LDB/ERO/81/16/12 dated 31.10.1997], by which the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Joygun Bibi, was declared to be a foreigner under Section 2 (a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, who has illegally entered into India (Assam) after the cut-off date 25.03.1971.
3) The petitioner, upon service of notice of the proceeding, appeared before the learned Tribunal and submitted her written statement, inter alia, stating that she is a citizen of India by birth. Her father is Md. Ambaz Ali, who is a citizen of India by birth, having landed prop
The petitioner failed to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as the presented documentation was insufficient and lacked proper verification.
A quasi-judicial authority must consider all relevant evidence and materials in its decision-making to ensure validity and prevent arbitrary conclusions.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
A foreigner's status must be proven by credible and verifiable evidence linking them to claimed Indian ancestors; mere appearances in voter rolls are insufficient.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, and failure to produce evidence can lead to a declaration of foreigner status.
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.
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
