The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the individual, requiring direct and admissible documentary evidence to establish lineage to an Indian ancestor. Supervisory jurisdiction does not allow for re-evaluating factual findings by tribunals unless such findings are perverse, illegal, or unsupported by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Shamima Jahan, J.

Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Ms. R. B. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Mr.S.K.Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned opinion dated 22.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5th, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Case No. FT (V) No. 976 of 2016, corresponding to SP Enquiry No. 8897/98, by which the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream.

FACTS

3. The case of the petitioner is that he had enough documents and had also adduced oral evidence in his defence, to prove that he is not a foreigner, but the same were rejected by the learned Tribunal by the said order, as stated above. The petitioner states that in the 1996 Voters’ List, the name of his father was reflected being resident of Village-Garakhat, Part No. 49, Mouza-Pub-Dalgaon, P.S- Dalgaon, in the district of Darrang. He has exhibited the certified copy of 1996 Voters’ List, wherein his father’s name was shown. He had also endeavoured to show that along with his father, his mother, namely, Sahiran Bibi, was also enlisted as a voter, but the said alleged fact was stated by way of an uncertified voters’ list, which again is not admissible under the law. Thereafter, the petitioner had placed the voters’ list of 1970, wherein, his father’s name was reflected. The place where his father stayed is also same as that provided in 1966 voters’ list. Further, the same alleged fact that the mother of the petitioner also was a voter in the year 1970 was placed by way of an uncertified copy of the Voters’ List.

4. However, the petitioner stated that in the voters’ list of 1997, which is, however, an extract copy of the uncertified voters’ list, the petitioner was declared as a ‘D’-Voter. However, in the uncertified copy of the voters’ list, there is no reflection that the petitioner was declared as a ‘D’-Voter. By the said uncertified voters’ list of 1997, the petitioner stated that his name appeared along with his step mother and his wife.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother, Sahiran Bibi expired when he was 10 years old and that his father Sahed Ali married one Sabiran Bibi, who is also known as Sahiran Bibi. Thereafter, the petitioner placed the voters’ list of 2005, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared with his wife as well as his younger brother. It is stated by the petitioner that his father expired after one year of his father’s marriage with his step mother. In the said voters’ list of 2005, the petitioner tried to project that his step mother was also there in the voters’ list by taking recourse to an uncertified copy of the voters’ list of 2005. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has placed the voters’ list of 2018, wherein it is reflected that the petitioner’s name appeared along with his projected step mother as well as his wife and younger brother.

6. Apart from the said voters’ list, the petitioner had also relied on the certificate issued by the Gaonburah of Village Garakhat, Mouza Pub Dalgaon, PS-Dalgaon, District-Darrang, wherein it was stated that the petitioner who was spelled as Chilo Seikh, son of Late Sahed Ali was known to him and that the said Chilo Seikh is the resident of the area, where he resided. The said certificate was given on 18.12.2018. The petitioner had also relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card, issued in favour of the petitioner, namely, Chilo Seikh, being the son of Sahed Ali.

7. The petitioner had filed his written statement before the learned Tribunal and in the same, he stated, inter alia, that the Border Police did not make any field visit during investigation and had never asked the petitioner to produce the documents in support of