The burden of proving citizenship in a foreigner-related proceeding rests exclusively on the individual. Failure to substantiate documentary evidence through primary proof or authentication, combined with inconsistencies in oral testimony, enables a tribunal to reach an adverse finding regarding the claim of citizenship.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT, Border Matters and NRC for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3; and Ms.R.B. Bora, learned Junior Govt. Advocate.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, namely, Hajera Khatun has assailed the impugned opinion dated 28.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Case No. F.T.C. (6)190/2015, thereby declaring her to be a foreigner of post 24.03.1971 stream.

Submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the pleadings and evidence and had submitted that the Local Verification Officer did not make a proper enquiry, which is evident from the incomplete forms of enquiry. Accordingly, it was submitted that not only the reference was defective and mechanically submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Border) Sonitpur, but the reference was also mechanically accepted by the learned Tribunal and process was issued against the petitioner. It was submitted that as the Verification Officer’s Report was blank, the petitioner was not furnished with the grounds of suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner and in other words, there were no charges against the petitioner. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of Rafika Bibi @ Rafika Khatoon v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 3330/2020, decided on 26.05.2025. Moreover, it was submitted that as per the Verification Officer’s Report, the petitioner was born at Habidalani in the year 1967 and therefore, the petitioner was a citizen of India as per Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Therefore, the petitioner is an Indian citizen. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal had discarded the pleadings and evidence, including 5 (five) exhibits for untenable reasons and without applying judicious mind. Hence, it was submitted that the impugned opinion be interfered with.

Submissions by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters:

4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. It was submitted that it is not expected that the petitioner, who is a suspected foreigner will disclose any material unfavourable to her. Therefore, the Verification Officer, due to non-disclosure of material facts, had to put ‘X’ marks against column nos. 7 to 16 of the Verification Officer’s Report. It was submitted that the case of Rafika Bibi @ Rafika Khatoon (supra), as the law laid down in this regard was not placed before this Court and thus, it was submitted that the decision of Rafika Bibi @ Rafika Khatoon (supra) must be considered to apply under the facts of that case and in this case the same cannot be applied as it is hit by the principles of per incuriam.

Discussion and decision:

5. On service of notice, the petitioner appeared before the said learned Tribunal and filed her written statement. It was stated that the petitioner was a citizen of India. She was born at Jurgorh