The burden of proving citizenship lies solely with the individual in determination proceedings. A writ court under supervisory jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate body; it must limit its scrutiny to the decision-making process for legality and procedural propriety.

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 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri in F.T. Case No. 3221/D/2011. 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), Dhubri District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. Case No. 3221/D/2011.

(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 17.09.2018 along with certain documents and had also 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. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned GA, Assam, Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri S. Kakati, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 05.02.2020.

4. Shri Rahman, 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 as DW1 and also the following documentary evidence.

(i) Ext-1 - Registered Kabin Nama

(ii) Ext-2 - certified copy of the voter list of 1966.

(iii) Ext-3 - certified copy of the voter list of 1970.

(iv) Ext-4 - certified copy of the voter list of 1975.

(v) Ext-5 - certified copy of the voter list of 1977.

(vi) Ext-6 - certified copy of the voter list of 1985.

(vii) Ext-7 - certified copy of the voter list of 1997.

(viii) Ext-8 - certified copy of the voter list of 2005.

(ix) Ext-9 - certified copy of the voter list of 2010.

(ix) Ext-10 - certified copy of the voter list of 2015.

(ix) Ext-11 - certified copy of the voter list of 2018.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. He has relied upon the Voters Lists of 1966 and 1970 containing the names of her projected grandparents and uncles. The next Voter List is of the year 1975 containing the names of the grandmother, two uncles and father.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Voters Lists of 1977, 1985, 1997, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2018 containing the name of her projected parents and projected brothers in few.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a registered Kabinnama (Ext.1) dated 01.04.1998 proved by the Kazi as DW3. It has been strenuously con