The burden of proving citizenship lies exclusively with the individual. In supervisory writ jurisdiction, courts cannot substitute their findings of fact for those of the adjudicatory body unless the decision is shown to be patently erroneous, perverse, or procedurally irregular.

Judgment & Order :

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 21.12.2018 th passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal (6th), Nagaon, Assam in F.T. Case No. FT(6th) 318/2016. 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), Nagaon, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. Case No.FT(6th) 318/2016.

(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 25.11.2016 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 S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.R.C.;Shri P. Sarma, learned G.A., Assam, Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on instructions of A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri S.S. Roy, learned C.G.C. We have also carefully examined the records of the Tribunal which were requisitioned vide an order dated 02.12.2019.

4. Shri Hoque, 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 the following documentary evidence.

(i) Ext-1- certified copy of voter list of 1965,

(ii) Ext-2- voter list of 1971,

(iii) Ext-3-certified copy of voter list of 1985,

(iv) Ext-4- certified copy of voter list of 1997,

(v) Ext-5-certified copy of sale deed,

(vi) Ext-6-Jamabandi copy,

(vii) Ext-7 - revenue receipt,

(viii) Ext-8 - Admit Card in original of S.E.B.A.,

(ix) Ext-9 - affidavit of the proceedee,

(x) Exts-10 and 11 - two Gaonburah certificates.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the voters list of 1965 contains the names of her grandmother and father and the next voters list relied upon is of the year 1971 containing the name of her uncle and mother. The next voters list is of the year 1977 which, however, was not exhibited. The voters list of 1985 has been exhibited containing the name of the father of the petitioner. Certain other voters lists of 1989, 2005 and 2013 have been referred which, however, were not exhibited. The petitioner has, however, relied upon a voters list of 1997 containing her name along with her p