In citizenship proceedings, the burden of proof rests entirely on the individual. Documentary evidence requires proof of both authenticity and contents through the examination of authors and contemporaneous records. A writ court exercising certiorari jurisdiction cannot reweigh evidence, limiting its scope to reviewing the decision-making process for legal errors.

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 30.03.2019 nd nd passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Barpeta in F.T. (2 ) Case No. 827/2016 [IM(D)T Case No.1240/B/98]. 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), Barpeta against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. (2nd) Case No. 827/2016. 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 08.09.2017 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 SC Biswas, 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 Dy. SGI. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 16.09.2019.

4. Shri Biswas, 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-A certified copy of the voter list-1965;

(ii) Ext-B certified copy of the voter list -1989;

(iii) Ext-C certified copy of the voter list-1997;

(iv) Ext-D Elector Photo Identity Card of DW-II (Jubeda Bewa);

(v) Ext-E Photocopy of SLC dated 28.07.2017;

(vi) Ext-F Certificate dated 18.08.2017 issued by Gaonbura of vill – Chafakamar, Charge No.9;

(vii) Ext-G Elector Photo Identity Card of DW-2 (Kachem Ali);

(viii) Ext-H Death Certificate dated 05.04.2018 of Jubeda Bewa.

5. Shri Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is Noor Alam and his father’s name is Jahur Ali Mia. He has proved the Voters List of the year 1965 containing the name of his projected father, Jahur Ali Mia and one Mahitan Nessa, projected step-mother. The next voter list exhibited is of the year 1989 containing the n