SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 762

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kalyan Rai Surana, Shamima Jahan, JJ.
Shajiran @ Saziran Bewa, W/O. A. Rashid – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 6343 of 2019
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr A A Dewan, Mr B Islam
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC, Ms. A. Verma, Standing, Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel.

Citizenship must be proved through admissible documentary evidence, not mere oral testimony. Documents containing unauthorized state emblems are inadmissible. Failure to disclose material facts in initial pleadings invites an adverse inference, justifying the dismissal of claims where ancestral linkage is not strictly established.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Citizenship - Determination of status - Burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish citizenship by cogent and admissible evidence.

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 50 - Opinion on relationship - Mere oral testimony is insufficient to establish ancestral lineage - Documentary evidence is essential - Material facts not disclosed in initial pleadings lead to adverse inferences. (Paras 19, 20, 23)

(C) State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 - Rule 10(2) - Certificates issued by local authorities incorporating unauthorized State emblems are inadmissible in evidence. (Para 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an opinion issued by a tribunal declaring her a foreigner. She claimed citizenship based on historical electoral rolls and marriage/residency certificates issued by local village authorities. The tribunal rejected her claim on the grounds that the petitioner failed to substantively link herself to her projected parents and that the evidence provided was insufficient or inadmissible.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide documentation linking her to her ancestors and that the residency certificates were inadmissible due to the unauthorized use of state emblems. The court noted that it exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and found no perversity in the tribunal's findings.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the admissibility of village level documentation, the requirement of linking ancestral data to the proceedee, and the scope of judicial review in determining citizenship status.

Ratio Decidendi: Citizenship claims must be supported by admissible documentary evidence rather than mere oral testimony. Inadmissible documents, including those violating state emblem usage rules, cannot satisfy the burden of proof. Furthermore, non-disclosure of critical familial links in pleadings justifies an adverse inference against the petitioner.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and competing contentions regarding citizenship and linkage evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. failure to disclose material facts and inconsistencies in oral evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. mandatory burden of proving citizenship through admissible, corroborated documentary evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. dismissal of petition due to absence of proof of linkage and lack of jurisdictional error. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3; and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India for respondent no.5.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Shajiran @ Saziran Bewa, has assailed the opinion dated 26.06.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-5 , Barpeta, Assam, in Case No. F.T.(5 ) 42/2016, arising out of Reference IM(D)T Case No. 4287(A)/97, by which she was declared to be a foreigner who had entered Assam on or after 25.03.1971.

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the written statement filed by the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had denied the allegation that she was a foreigner and took all the defence relevant to establish that she was not a foreigner.

4) Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1, and in her evidence-on-affidavit the petitioner had reiterated the statements made in her written statement. It was submitted that the petitioner had stated that she is a citizen of India, and born and brought up at village- Balagaon, under Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar, in the then district of Kamrup. Her father’s name is Nabur Uddin Sheikh and her mother’s name is Mahiran Nessa and their names appear in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 of village- Balagaon, 51 No. Jania LAC. She was married to Abdul Rasid, son of Late Abdul Hamid of village- Khelli, Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar, in the district of Barpeta, Assam and her name appeared for the first time along with her husband in the electoral roll of 1985 of village- Khelli under 44 No. Jania LAC. After 1985, she had shifted to village- Balagaon, under Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar (presently Kalgachia), in the district of Barpeta and her name appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 with her husband at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC. Her name also appeared in the electoral roll of 1997 at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC, but marked as ‘D’. A link certificate has been issued in her favour by the Secretary of the Tapeswara Gaon Panchayat in respect of her marriage, which is countersigned by the B.D.O. of Rupshi Development Block and the Gaonburah of village Balagaon and Khelli had issued two separate certificates in respect of her residential identity and marriage linkage. She had stated that her actual name is Shaziran Nessa, which is correctly recorded in all voters’ lists, but in the case record, her name is wrongly written as Shaziran Bewa and that both the names are of one person, i.e. petitioner. In support of her contention, she had exhibited the following documents:-

i. Certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.A)

ii. Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B)

iii. Certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.C)

iv. Certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.D)

v. Certificate by Gaonburah of Balagaon (Ext.E)

vi. Certificate by Gaonburah of Khelli (Ext.F).

5) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in support of her defence, the petitioner had also examined Abdus Samad Ahmed, the Gaonburah of village- Balagaon as DW-2; and Hajarat Ali, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top