The burden of proving citizenship lies solely with the individual asserting it. Oral testimony without corroborating documentation is insufficient, and unexplained inconsistencies in official records regarding lineage, age, and place of residence effectively prevent the individual from discharging the mandatory burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

S.P. Khaund, J.

The petitioner, Musstt. Sahara Begum is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st ) Assam in connection with FT (D) Case No.65/2016, Police Inquiry No.109/2016, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who entered into Assam from the specified territory after 24.03.1971.

2. A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, Police Inquiry No. 109/2016, expressing doubt over the nationality of the petitioner. This case was then registered and notices were issued to the petitioner, who appeared and filed two written statements. The petitioner also adduced evidence of 3 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The petitioner adduced the evidence of the following witnesses and exhibited the following documents:

DW-1- Petitioner Sahera Khatun

DW-2- Muslim Ali @Muslimuddin

DW-3- Sher Alom

Exhibit 1- a certified copy of the voters list, 1966;

Exhibit 2- a certified copy of voters list of 1992;

Exhibit 2.1- a certified copy of electoral roll of 2016; and,

Exhibit 3- EPIC.

3. After scrutinizing the documentary evidence and assessing the evidence of the witnesses, the learned Tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreign national who entered into India from the specified territory of Bangladesh, after 24.03.1971.

4. Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the oral evidence of the petitioner's father cannot be ignored. The petitioner's name has been reflected along with her father's name in the PRC, but the learned Tribunal did not consider this fact, which was important to establish the petitioner's lineage with her father to prove her citizenship. It is further contended that although the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has illegally migrated to India from the specified territory, the interrogation report does not at all state that the petitioner has entered into India from Bangladesh. The interrogation report solely depicts that the petitioner has entered into India after 25.03.1971, but the enquiry officer failed to mention that the petitioner had entered India from Bangladesh. This failure is solely because the petitioner is not a Bangladeshi national but an Indian national. The evidence of the petitioner substantiates her written statement and the petitioner was not cross-examined by the authority to dispute her evidence and her written statement.

6. It is further contended that the petitioner did not claim at any stage before the Tribunal that her mother is Morjan Nessa and not Sakina Khatoon. She stated clearly in her evidence on 03.04.2018 under oath that her mother's name is Morjan Nessa and her father's name is Muslim Ali @ Muslimuddin and therefore, no burden was cast upon the petitioner to show that Sakina Khatoon is related to her in any manner. On such superfluous grounds, the Tribunal has erroneously declared the petitioner