1. Challenge to Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring petitioner a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 for illegal entry after 25.03.1971. (Para 2 )
Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ.
Musstt. Nili Bibi @ Nilima Khatun, W/O Late Samed Ali - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi - Respondent
WP(C) No. 8578 of 2018
Decided On : 19-08-2024
1. Challenge to Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring petitioner a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 for illegal entry after 25.03.1971. (Para 2 )
2. Petitioner claimed citizenship by birth; respondent argued failure to prove linkage with projected father. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Writ petition dismissed; Foreigners Tribunal opinion affirmed; interim protection vacated. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 )
The High Court does not reweigh evidence; it can only interfere if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. (Para 16 , 17 , 31 )
The issuing authority or a person from the relevant office must be produced to prove the contents; mere marking as exhibit is insufficient. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
No, such an inherent inconsistency renders the document unreliable and justifies its rejection. (Para 23 )
No, mere oral testimony and written statement are not enough; the proceedee must adduce admissible documentary evidence. (Para 27 , 28 )
No, documents not exhibited before the Tribunal cannot be relied upon in writ proceedings to challenge the opinion. (Para 26 )
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 Case No.1580/D/07) may be referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri for determining the nationality of the petitioner.
ii. Accordingly, on 01.06.2011, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri made a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal-2, Dhubri for deciding the nationality status of the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Nili Bibi, under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made there under.
iii. On receipt of the aforesaid reference from the SP (B), Kokrajhar, the Foreigners Tribunal Kokrajhar registered the Case No. K/FT/D/1393/12 against the petitioner and issued notice to her, fixing 16.11.2017 for her appearance and for filing the written statement.
iv. On receipt of the notice of the case, the petitioner filed her written statement along with her evidence on affidavit before the learned Tribunal on 24.01.2018, wherein she claimed herself to be a citizen of India by birth.
v. The petitioner also adduced evidence of her projected father, namely, Insan Ali, as PW-2, as well as her projected mother, namely, Bacchani Bibi, as PW-3.
vi. In her written statement submitted before the Tribunal, the petitioner has stated that she was brought up at village Uttar Falimari under Tiamari Police Station in the district of Dhubri. The petitioner has also stated that she got married with one Samad Ali, son of Somer Ali, of village Angarkata, Part-2, under Bogoribari Police Station in Kokrajhar District and her name was recorded in the voter list of 2016 at Serial No. 93, House No. 20, under 26 No. Bilasipara West, (GEN), LAC, as Nili Bibi. She has also stated in her written statement that her father's name is Insan Ali, who is a citizen of India and he has been issued an electoral photo identity card bearing No. DHL2140661 under 23 No. Dhubri LAC.
vii. She has also stated that the name of her father, Insan Ali, has been enlisted in the voter list of 1997 at Serial No. 1112, House No. 380, under 23 No. Dhubri LAC stating further that the name of her father was also reflected in the voter list of 2010 of 23 No. Dhubri LAC, at Serial No.617, against house No. 380 and that her grandfather Noor Baksh's name was also reflected in the voter list of 1966 of 33 No. Dhubri LAC, under Serial No. 98, against House No. 27.
viii. She has also stated that the name of the grandfather of the petitioner has also been reflected in the Registered Deed No. 7547, dated 16.11.1962, in respect of a plot of land, which was duly registered before the Office of the Sub-registrar, Dhubri.
ix. Petitioner in her written statement also stated that in some of the documents, her name has been shown as Nilima Khatun and in some other documents, it is shown as Nilima Bibi and she has stated that all the names i.e., Nilima Bibi, Nili Bibi and Nilima Khatun are her name only.
x. In her evidence on affid
AI
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