The burden of proving citizenship lies exclusively with the individual under the applicable statutory framework. Writ courts possess supervisory jurisdiction and will not perform the role of an appellate body to re-examine or re-weigh evidence previously considered and decided by a tribunal.

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 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal no. 4th , Darrang, Mangaldai, Assam in F.T. 4th Case No. 46/DHL/2016 arising out of Reference vide IM (D) T Case No. 482/98. 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), Darrang th District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. 4 Case No. 46/DHL/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 14.02.2017 along with certain documents and adduced evidence through 3 DWs.

(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 S. A. Ahmed, 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. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 08.12.2021.

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 his evidence adduced by three DWs and also the following documentary evidence. It may be mentioned that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, though a number of documents were referred and marked as exhibits, only the following documents were actually produced and this aspect has been taken note of by the learned Tribunal:

Ext-1: A certified copy of the Voter list 1966. Ext-2: A certified copy of the Voter list 1970.

Ext-3: A copy of the Certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary.

Ext-4: A certified copy of the Voter list 1997.

Ext-5: A copy of the NRC Legacy Data of 1966. Ext-6: A Copy of the NRC Legacy Data of 1970.

Ext-9: Legacy Data 1971.

Ext-15: Gaonburha certificate of 2 No. Magurmari.

Ext.16. Gaonburah Certificate.

5. 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 her parents appeared in the Voters Lists of 1966 and 1970. He has submitted that the certificate by the Gaon Panchayat has provided the link of the petitioner with her father and therefore the petitioner had discharged the burden. The petitioner had relied upon the Voter List of 1997 in which her name appears. She has also relied upon