The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the individual. In writ jurisdiction, the court does not function as an appellate body to re-examine facts but limits its review to the legality of the decision-making process and whether the findings are supported by admissible, corroborated evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the opinion rendered vide impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal no.1, Kamrup (R) in G.F.T. Case No. 991/2017. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner, who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971.

2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:

(i) A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid G.F.T. Case No. 991/2017. Initially, the reference was made under IM(D)T Act, 1983 and after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, the matter was placed before the Foreigners Tribunal.

(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner had filed the written statement on 26.04.2018 along with certain documents.

(iii) The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 had come to a finding that the petitioner, as opposite party, had failed to discharge the burden cast upon her and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971.

3. We have heard Shri A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned GA, Assam, Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 19.08.2018.

4. Shri Sikdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could prove his case with cogent evidence and in view of the fact that there was no rebuttal evidence, the learned Tribunal should have accepted the said proof and accordingly hold the petitioner to be a citizen of India. In this regard, he has referred to his evidence adduced as DW1 and also the following documentary evidence.

1.Ext.-A Certified copy of Voters List of 1966.

2.Ext.-B Certified copy of Voters List of 1970.

3.Ext. C Photocopy of an extract copy of Voters List of 1971

4.Ext.-D Photocopy of application dated 31-03-2018.

5.Ext.-E Certified copy of Voters List of 1977.

6.Ext.-F Land Revenue Payment Receipts dtd 01.2.77 & 12.1.84.

7.Ext.-G Certified copy of Voters List of 1989.

8.Ext.-H Certified copy of Voters List of 1997.

9.Ext.-I Certified copy of Voters List of 2005.

10.Ext.-J Certified copy of Voters List of 2010.

11.Ext.-K Certified copy of Voters List of 2016.

12.Ext.-L Marriage certificate.

13.Ext.-M Certified copy of Voters List of 1997.

14.Ext.-N Certified copy of Voters List of 2005.

15.Ext.-O Certified copy of Voters List of 2016.

16. Ext.-P Certified copy of Voters List of 2018.

17.Ext.-Q Photocopy of Elector Photo Identity Card.

18. Ext.-R Certificate issued by Gaonburha.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. It is submitted that the Voters Lists of 1966 and 1970 have been proved with the name of the Grandparen