The burden of proving citizenship lies exclusively with the individual asserting it. Documentary evidence must be verified by contemporaneous records, and a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction shall not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a demonstrable procedural error or legal infirmity 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 24.04.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Bongaigaon in BNGN/FT- 2/APR/Case No. 398/2016 and Ref. Case No. BNGNIMDT Case No. 422/2004. 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), Bongaigaon District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No. 398/2016 and Ref. Case No. BNGNIMDT Case No. 422/2004.

(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 22.09.2016 along with certain documents and adduced evidence through herself and her father. Further, there was also a Court witness.

(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 Ms. R. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department; Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Shri P. Sarma, GA, Assam, Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel (on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, SC, ECI) and Ms. A. Tsopoe, learned counsel (on behalf of Shri G. Pegu, learned CGC). We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 06.11.2019.

4. Ms. Choudhury, the learned Senior 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, she has referred to the evidence adduced by 2 nos. of DWs, namely, herself and her father and also the following documentary evidence. There was also a Court witness.

(i) Birth Certificate (Ext.1)

(ii) Voter List of 1985. (Ext. 2)

(iii) Voter List of 1966 (Ext. 3)

(iv) Voter List of 1970 (Ext.4)

(v) Voter List of 1997 (Ext. 5)

(vi) Voter List of 2005 (Ext. 6)

(vii) Voter List of 2010 (Ext. 7)

(viii) Voter List of 2011 (Ext. 8)

(ix) Voter List of 2016 (Ext. 9)

(x) Voter Photo I/D Card (Ext. 10)

DW2 evidence.

(i) Voter List of 2005 (Ext.A)

(ii) Voter List of 2010 (Ext. B)

(iii) Voter Photo I/D Card (Ext. C)

(iv) SBI Identity Card (Ext. D)

(v) Jamabandi Copy (Ext. E).

5. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. She submits that the Birth Certificate of the petitioner was proved as Ext. 1 in which the names of the parents of the petitioner were clearly stated as Hazrat Ali (father) and Hazera Khatun (mother). She has relied upon the Voters Lists of 19