The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the individual. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the court will not re-evaluate evidence or substitute its findings for those of the tribunal, provided the decision-making process is free from legal error, perversity, or procedural impropriety.

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 31.10.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal no.10th, Nagaon in F.T. (D) Case No. 216/2015 arising out of SP’s FT Case No. 313/2006. 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) The proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after receipt of the Enquiry Report and notice was issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid F.T. Case No. 216/2015.

(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 15.10.2015 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 him and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971.

3. We have heard Shri A. S. Tapadar, 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 Shri P.S. Lahkar, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 09.02.2017.

4. Shri Tapadar, 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 the evidence on affidavit of the four numbers of witnesses and also the following documentary evidence:

(i) Ext.-1 is the certified copy of the Voters list of 1965

(ii) Ext.- 2 is the certified copy of the Voters list of 1970;

(iii) Ext-3 is a residency certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah of Charlock village.

(iv) Ext-4 accordingly to the OP/DW-1 is a downloaded copy of the NRC Legacy Data of 1951;

(v) Ext-5 is the proved in Original copy of the Voter’s Photo I/D.

5. Shri Tapadar, the learned counsel has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is Abdul Ajid @ Md. Harzid Ali, and his father’s name is Abdul Hussain. He had proved the Voters Lists of the years 1965 and 1970 containing the name of his father as Abdul Hussain. He has also produced the Voter Lists of the years 1975 and 1985 wherein the name of his projected father has been written as A. Hussain. The petitioner has proved the Voters List of 1993 wherein his name appears as A. Ajid and the subsequent Voters List of 1997 where his name appears as Abdul Ajid.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has also proved the Residency Certificate by the Government Gaonburah of Charl