The burden of proving citizenship lies exclusively on the individual. Judicial review via a writ of certiorari is strictly supervisory, precluding appellate re-evaluation of factual findings or evidence, and is limited to correcting legal errors or procedural perversity in the decision-making process.

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 21.07.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.4 , Darrang, Mangaldai in F.T. 4th Case No. 83/SPR/2017 and FT Case No.5022/2011 (Ref. FT Case No.1193 dated 15.12.2010). 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), Darrang District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. 4th Case No. 83/SPR/2017 and FT Case No.5022/2011.

(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 08.03.2018 along with certain documents and had also adduced evidence.

(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 JM Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned GA, Assam, Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 21.08.2019.

4. Shri Sulaiman, 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 documents:

(i) Ext-1 - Xerox copy of Voter List of 2018;

(ii) Ext-2 - Xerox copy of voter ID.

(iii) Ext-3 - certified copy of Voter List of 1997;

(iv) Ext-4 - Legacy Data Code 120-0037-2518;

(v) Ext-5 - certified copy of Voter List of 1966;

(vi) Ext-6 - certified copy of Voter List of 1971;

(vii) Ext-7 - Gaonburah Certificate;

(viii) Ext-8 - NRC application acknowledgment receipt.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. He has submitted that in the Voters List of 1966, name of his parents were enlisted, namely, Jasi Seikh (father) and Moujan Nessa (mother). The next Voter List is of the year 1971 and it is contended that the same contains the name of his parents, namely, Jasimuddin (father) and Matujan (mother) along with her brother, Tabibar Rahman. Reference have also been made to the Voters Lists of 1989 and 1993. The next Voters List is of the year 1997 containing the name of the petitioner and his wife followed by the Voters List of 2018.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Gaonburah Certificate dated 29.06.2012 and has contended that the linkage has been proved with his