Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, ANJAN MONI KALITA
Ali Akbar, S/o. Late Abdul Jalil – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Home Affairs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner asserts citizenship from lineage and documents. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. testimonies support petitioner’s claims of citizenship. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. counsel argues lineage ties to mother and maternal grandfather. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. opposition argues lack of credible evidence for citizenship. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court evaluates evidence, confirms tribunal's rejection. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. electoral rolls and documents evaluated but lack links to citizenship. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. court maintains tribunal's decision due to insufficient evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. court dismisses the writ petition, upholding the tribunal's ruling. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Kalita, J.
Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate as well as Ms. A.Verma, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. and Border matters.
2. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the Opinion dated 27.03.2019, in F.T. (8) Case No. 3640/18 (Ref. TZP (B) F.T. Case No. 20/18), passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal (In short, th
The court affirmed that citizenship claims must be substantiated by credible documents demonstrating lineage to ancestors present in India prior to 1971, rejecting mere assertions.
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 for citizenship rests on the petitioner in Foreigners Act cases; discrepancies in documentation can undermine claims of Indian citizenship.
The burden lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
Point of Law – Indian Citizenship – Proof of - onus is on the procedee to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.
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.
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.
In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish a direct bloodline connection to an Indian ancestor. Identity documents are not conclusive proof of citizenship, and....
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
