Back
HE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Musstt. Nili Bibi @ Nilima Khatun, W/O Late Samed Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Mr. P. Sharma, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.4 as well as Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for respondent No.6.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Nili Bibi @ Nilima Khatun, impugning the judgment and opinion dated 13.06.2018, passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar, in Case No. K/FT/D/1393/12 (FTC No. 357/BBR/11), whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of this writ petition, in brief, are as follows:
i. A communication was made by the Electoral Registration Officer, 26/Bilasipara West Legislative Assembly Constituency to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Kokrajhar, expressing doubt about the nationality of the above-named petitioner and through the said communication, it was requested that the matter (Reference D-voter
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and mere oral testimony is inadequate without corroborating documentary evidence.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
The burden of proof on individuals asserting citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, and the need for documentary evidence and verification of contents to establish citizenship.
The burden of proof lies on the individual to establish their citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and presenting reliable and verified evidence is crucial to prove citizenship status.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual asserting it, particularly under the Foreigners' Act, and the petitioner failed to establish her claims adequately.
The burden of proving citizenship lies on the individual claiming it, necessitating admissible and reliable evidence to establish linkage with parents.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring admissible and reliable evidence to counter claims of foreign status.
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.
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
