Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N. Kotiswar Singh, Lanusungkum Jamir, JJ
Uttam Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) No. 93/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. D. Ghosh
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Parasar, Mr. J. Payeng, Ms. U. Das, Ms. L. Devi, Mr. A. Bhuyan
The petitioner proved his citizenship by birth through the registration of his father, contradicting the Foreigners Tribunal's ruling based on misinterpretation of evidence requirements.
Headnote:(A) Citizenship Act, 1955 - Section 5(1)(a) - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Burden of proof regarding citizenship - Tribunal declared petitioner a foreigner denying his claim based on documentary evidence including a Certificate of Registration from 1956, voter lists, and testimony of father. Court found substantial evidence to prove petitioner's Indian citizenship through his father's registration. Objections on evidence admission and requirements under Section 6A found unsubstantiated. Court emphasized the importance of protecting genuine citizenship rights. (Paras 24, 44, 72)
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof - Preponderance of probabilities to determine citizenship claim. Court establishes that a more lenient approach is appropriate for statutory recognition of citizenship based on familial connections. (Paras 25, 26)
(C) Judicial Interpretation - Importance of considering relevant provisions of law - Misconstruction by Tribunal observed leading to unjust denial of citizenship rights; Court exercised jurisdiction to rectify. (Paras 70, 72)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of citizenship declaration (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of petitioner's claimed background (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. assessment by foreigners tribunal (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments presented by the petitioner (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. state's contentions against the petitioner (Para 17 , 20) |
| 6. court's analysis of burden of proof (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. examination of documentary evidence (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. legal foundations for citizenship by registration (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 62) |
| 9. final determination of citizenship status (Para 70 , 72 , 73) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) [N. Kotiswar Singh, J.]
Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Standing Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent nos.2, 5, 7 & 8; Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent nos.6, Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent no.3 and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent no.4.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned opinion dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati-3 passed in FT Case No. 02/2019 by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner.
3. Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had produced sufficient materials before the Tribunal to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian and not a foreigner. The petitioner has also collected some more important documents subsequently like certified copies of the voters lists of 1966, 1997, 2005 and 2021 etc. and if necessary, these may be allowed to be filed so that he can conclusively establish his claim of Indian citizenship. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of the lock down due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not produce the aforesaid documents. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Court is not satisfied with the existing evidences on record to prove that he is an Indian, the matter can be remanded to the concerned Tribunal for reconsideration by allowing these documents to be filed.
The petitioner submits that otherwise also, there are sufficient documents to prove that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner.
4. Before we go further to examine the rival contentions of the parties, we would like to examine the impugned opinion/order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati-3 passed in FT Case No. 02/2019.
5. As also mentioned in the opinion dated 07.07.2021, the petitioner had filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India by birth and was born on 15.11.1979 at Guwahati Railway Colony, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. He stated that his grandfather, father and other relatives had left the then East Pakistan and entered India as refugees. Thereafter, a Certificate of Registration was issued in the name of his father, Promod Chandra Ghosh, son of Late Jagannath Ch. Ghosh by the Sub Deputy Collector, Patharkandi, Cachar Assam on 24.10.1956 registering Promod Chandra Ghosh as a citizen of India. Thus, his father is an Indian citizen by registration.
6. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s father’s name, Promod Ch. Ghosh, appeared in the voters list of 1966 of LA-05, Patharkandi Assembly Constituency and the name of the petitioner along with his family members appeared in the final draft of NRC list of 2019. He also stated that his name along with the parents’ names i.e. Promod Ch. Ghosh (father) and Bina Rani Ghosh (mother) appeared in the voters lists of 2010, 2013 and 2019 under 54 West Guwahati Constituency. He also stated that his father, Promod Ch. Ghosh was a permanent resident of Village: Lowipua, Satish Basti, P.S. Patharkandi. The petitioner also stated that when his father was 31 years, his father shifted his re
