In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof lies solely on the individual. Oral testimony of relatives, without corroborating admissible documentary evidence, is insufficient to establish linkage or citizenship. Statutory provisions regarding opinion on relationships do not override the necessity for cogent documentary proof of ancestry.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

(Shamima Jahan, J.)

Heard Mr. A.S.Tapadar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Mr. P. Sarma,learned Government Advocate, Assam, Mr N Kalita, learned counsel representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Ms A Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated 13.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Assam;Barpeta 11th, in FT Case No. (Bpt/11 F.T. 862/2016, corresponding to FT Case No. 222 of 2013), whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream.

FACTS

3. The petitioner stated that she was born and brought up at her parental village of Jamadarbari Pathar, Sorbhog, Barpeta, Assam, and that she during filing of the petition was residing at Bagriguri Pathar, Sorbhog, District-Barpeta, being her husband’s place with her husband and other family members. She further stated that while she was staying with her husband, a Reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), subsequent to which a case was registered and a notice was issued to her. In response to the said notice, she submitted her written statement along with all necessary papers to establish her citizenship. She also stated that the Reference was made on mere suspicion and the Tribunal while declaring her as a foreigner, had just acted on police report without following the procedures and that the Police Report did not indicate the time of visit for enquiry and the witnesses examined. She relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Review Petition No. 22 of 2010, by which certain guidelines were laid down to be followed before initiation of process for Reference and that the said guidelines were not followed in the instant case.

4. She stated that her grandfather’s name, namely, Mayan Uddin (Nayan Uddin) was recorded in the NRC details of 1951 and that her father and mother, namely, Amzad Ali, son of Mayan Uddin and Pohela Khatun had also appeared in the final draft NRC list. She, thereafter, stated that her grandfather appeared in the electoral roll of 1965, vide Serial No. 141 and House No. 71 for 47 Sorbhog Assembly Constituency of Khudmabari Village and that in the electoral roll of 1970, the name of her grandfather again appeared vide Serial No. 240 with the same house number for the same constituency. She then stated that the name of her father appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 vide Serial No. 1099 with House No. 11 for 40 Sorbhog Assembly Constituency of the same village. Similarly, in the electoral roll of 1993, 1997, 2005 as well as 2008, the name of her father again appeared to vote for the same constituency. She, thereafter, stated that in respect of electoral roll of 2014, the name of her mother appeared vide Serial No. 71 with House No. 27 for the same constituency. To further establish her citizenship as well as to establish her link with her father, the petitioner had obtained a Gaonburah Certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah, Md Montaz Ali. In the said Certificate, it was stipulated that the petitioner is the daughter of Amzad Ali of Village-Jamadarbori Pathar, P.S.- Sorbhog, District-Barpeta, and that the petitioner was married to one Anowar