The burden of proving citizenship rests solely on the individual. Writ courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot act as appellate forums to re-weigh evidence, and must limit their review to the procedural legality of the tribunal's 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 19.01.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal no. 5th, Barpeta, Assam in F.T. (5th) Case No. 468/2016 arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 6635(A)/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 Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. (5 ) Case No. 468/2016.

(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 03.04.2017 along with certain documents and 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 her and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971.

3. We have heard Shri A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, 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 S. S. Roy, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide order dated 29.03.2019.

4. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could prove her 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 the evidence of the 3 nos. of DWs and also the following documentary evidence.

(i) Ext-A - Photocopy of certified voter list 1966.

(ii) Ext-B - Photocopy of certified voter list 1970.

(iii) Ext-C - Photocopy of certified voter list 1997.

(iv) Ext-D - certificate of Gaonburah of vill-Balikuri Nonke.

(v) Ext-E - linkage certificate of Gaon Panchayat.

(vi) Ext-F - name correction affidavit.

(vii) Ext-G - Xerox copy of voter ID in the name of Anowar Husen.

(viii) Annexure-I - photocopy of Voter list 2010

(ix) Annexure-II - photocopy of Voter List 1989

(x) Annexure-III - photocopy of Voter list 1997.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has questioned the proceeding on the ground that the enquiry report is incomplete. He has also submitted that while the notice had mentioned the stream as 1966-1971, the learned Tribunal had acted illegally in declaring the petitioner a foreigner post 1971. On merits, he has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. He has referred to the Voters Lists of 1966 and 1970 containing the names of his grandmother and parents. The next Voters List is however of the year 1997 con