The burden of proving citizenship lies solely with the claimant. Documentation used to establish lineage must be properly authenticated and proven in accordance with law; unproven, uncertified, or translated documents lacking primary verification are insufficient to establish a continuous link to ancestors for citizenship purposes.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.Chakraborty, learned CGC, Ms. S. Katakey, learned sc for the Election Commission of India, Mr. J. Payeng, learned SC for the FT and Border matters and Mr. P. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Ohema Bibi, has assailed the opinion dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri, in Case No. BNGN/ FT-2/APR/692/2017, arising out of IMDT Case No. 642/2004, thereby declaring the petitioner to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge has submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and she was born in the year 1971. Her forefathers were also citizens of India and they belong to the indigenous Goria Moria Assam Muslim community. It is submitted that the names of the grandparents of the petitioner were entered in the Voters list of 1966, 1970 and 1985. The name of the father of the petitioner is Rohim Uddin. She had married Md. Akhtar Ali on 12.06.1987 by executing a Kabinnama in the office of the Kazi and thereafter she resided in the matrimonial home and her name along with the name of her husband and other family members was entered in the Voters list of 1989, 1997, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017. It is submitted that on receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared and filed her written statement of defence and in support of her defence, the petitioner had submitted an evidence-on affidavit along with 20 exhibits. Moreover, it is submitted that the projected mother of the petitioner, namely, Paribanu Bewa adduced evidence as DW-2. However, the learned Tribunal had mechanically discarded all the documentary evidence on finding some minor discrepancies in the exhibited documents. Accordingly, it is submitted that the rejection of several documentary evidence including the Kabinnama, the Bank Passbook, the Link Certificate by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary and the Jamabandi which establishes the link with her parents and forefathers is not sustainable. By referring to the exhibited documents, it is submitted that the said documents are sufficient to prove the link of the petitioner with her projected parents. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned opinion warrants interference of the Court.

4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that the documents cannot be believed in view of the fact that the kabinnama was not proved by the issuing authority. Moreover, the Jamabandi on which reliance is placed does not connect the petitioner to her projected parents and moreover, as the petitioner has relied on the Voters list of 1989, it is noticed that the age difference between the mother (DW-2) and the petitioner is only 12 years which makes the evidence not believable. Accordingly, the impugned opinion is sustainable and therefore, the impugned opinion does not warrant any interference.

5. Perused the records of the learned Tribunal and considered the materials available in the writ petition as well as the submissions made at the Bar.

6. It appears from the record that upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had submitted her written statement, denying that she is a foreigner and stated that the case was not maintainable as she is a citizen of India. It was stated that the grandfa