Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Md. Abdul Hussain @ Abdul Hasen S/o Late Samsher Ali @ More Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and initial facts of the citizenship challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of testimonial evidence, exhibits, and arguments presented before the tribunal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. legal standard: burden of proof under section 9, foreigners act, and requirement for consistency in evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. final order dismissing the writ and affirming the tribunal order. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
(K.R. Surana, J.)
Heard Mr. K. Lahkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, Advocate, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India, respondent no.2; Mr. G. Sarma, Advocate, standing counsel for FT and Border matters, representing respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate representing respondent no.6.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Abdul Hussain @ Abdul Hasen, has challenged the opinion dated 21.11.2018, passed by the learned Member, nd Foreigners Tri
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
In citizenship determination proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the individual to establish ancestral linkage through consistent, corroborated documentary evidence. Mere production of documents....
The burden lies on the petitioner to provide reliable evidence establishing citizenship, which was not met, leading to the declaration of foreign status.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which was not met due to insufficient evidence linking her to her claimed lineage.
Point of Law : 12, 16. Under Section 9 of Foreigners' Act, 1946, burden is on proceedee to prove that she is not a foreigner, but a citizen of India and this burden never shifts.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign nationality.
Point of Law : Merely because of certain discrepancy in the name would not render a person to be liable to be declared as a foreigner.
Citizenship requires establishing a direct, consistent bloodline linkage to an ancestor present before the specified cut-off date. Documentary evidence, such as voters' lists and residential certific....
Merely because documents were collected by petitioner during pendency of reference, it cannot be a ground to ignore same as documents have to be examined as regards the genuineness, authenticity, rel....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
