The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the proceedee under the relevant statute. In writ jurisdiction, the court acts in a supervisory capacity and will not interfere with factual findings of a tribunal unless the decision-making process is demonstrably illegal or perverse.

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 at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in F.T. (D) Case No. 209/2015. 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 concerned Superintendent of Police (B), against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. (D) Case No. 209/2015.

(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 05.10.2015 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 his 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 G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned GA, Assam, Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri RKD Choudhury, learned DSGI. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 25.09.2019.

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 his evidence on affidavit and also the following documentary evidence.

(i) Ext-1 certified copy of the voter list-1966;

(ii) Ext-2 certified copy of the voter list -1970;

(iii) Ext-3 certified copy of the voter list-2011;

(iv) Ext-4 certified copy of voter list -2014;

(v) Ext-5 Residency Certificate of Gaonbura;

(vi) Ext-6 voter Identity Card of the petitioner.

(vii) Ext-7 Certificate of the Gaon Panchayat.

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 Saif Uddin @ Md. Sarif Uddin and his father’s name is Ibrahim Ali. He has proved the Voters Lists of the years 1966 and 1970 containing the name of his projected father, Ibrahim Ali. Further, three nos. of Voters Lists of the years 1977, 1985 and 1989 have been enclosed to the writ petition which however were not produced before the learned Tribunal and therefore under Certiorari jurisdiction, this Court is not obligated in law to consider the same. However, for the interest of justice, when those Voters Lists have been examined, it is found that there are inconsistencies in the House Nos., villages and ages. While in the Voters List of 1977 containing the name of the projected father with age as 50 years, in th