THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ.
Saleha Khatun, W/o. Aijul Hoque, D/o. Khandakar Jamal Uddin – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented By The Secretary of The Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.2639 of 2017
Decided On : 20-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of citizenship based on documentation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence provided by the petitioner regarding lineage. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. challenge to the credibility of documents submitted. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. burden of proof lies with the petitioner under section 9. (Para 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's findings on evidentiary discrepancies. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. inadmissibility of photocopies as evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. disparities in petitioner's documentation undermine citizenship claim. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. final judgment affirms tribunal's decision. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
S.P. Khaund, J.
The petitioner Saleha Khatun is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 7 Dhubri, at th Bilasipara in F.T.7 Dhubri Case No. 155/BBR/15 (F.T. Case No. 359/BBR/11) (‘D’ Voter Case No. 1556/D/2007).
2. Vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 passed in F.T. 7th Dhubri Case No. 155/BBR/15, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner who entered India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and duly contested the proceedings by filing her written statement. She also adduced oral evidence and exhibited documentary evidence in support of her written statement. In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner exhibited the following documents before the learned Tribunal.
1. Exhibit-1: Link Certificate dated 22.07.2015 along with Book Sl. No. 2544.
2. Exhibit-2: Certificate issued by the Headmaster of Puran Bijni Batinia M.E. Madrassa in support of the petitioner’s linkage with her father.
3. Exhibit-3: Certificate issued in support of the petitioner’s residence at Bangaldoba Relief Camp.
4. Exhibit-4: Copy of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), 1951.
5. Exhibit-5: Copy of NRC details.
6. Exhibit-6: Certified copy of the voters list of 1966.
7. Exhibit-7: Photocopy of the voters list of 1959.
8. Exhibit-8: Certified copy of the voters list of 1970.
9. Exhibit-9: Sale Deed dated 20.03.1978.
10. Exhibit-10: Documents in the name of Bodiyot Jamal relating to his residence at the time of the Kokrajhar violence in the year 1993.
11. Exhibit-11: Name correction affidavits.
12. Exhibit-A: Certificate showing that the petitioner is the daughter of Md. Khandakar Jamaal Uddin.
13. Exhibit-B: Kabin Nama.
4. The petitioner adduced her evidence and was duly cross-examined by the State. The other witnesses were examined as follows:
1. Prabin Brahma,
2. Habibur Rahman Khan,
3. Sri, Tarun Chandra Das, BDO,
4. Sri Abdul Rohman, GP Secretary,
5. Azizur Rahman Kazi, DW-5.
4. Ali Akbar Miah- DW6, President of Bangaldoba Relief Camp Committee.
5. Except DW-5 and DW-6, the other witnesses will be referred to by their names for convenience. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that, after closure of the evidence, when the learned Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s prayer to adduce additional evidence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1800/2016. Vide order dated 16.03.2016, this Hon’ble Court allowed the said writ petition and permitted the petitioner to adduce additional evidence.
6. This Court set aside the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal and directed consideration of the fresh application filed by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence. The petitioner then exhibited Ext-A and Ext-B through her additional evidence.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner is the granddaughter of Khandakar Abdul Mozid and the daughter of Khandakar Jamal Uddin, whose names appear in the National Register of Citizens, 1951 at Sl. Nos. 1 and 7, House No. 57, in village Moulabipara, District Goalpara. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father’s name appears in the NRC details of 1951 bearing Legacy Data Code No. 130-011-1538, pertaining to the same locality. The names of the petitioner’s father and gran
The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies on the individual, necessitating credible and coherent evidence, which must be reliable and consistent.
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....
Claimants asserting citizenship must substantiate their claims with credible evidence, failing which their claims may be dismissed as seen in foreigner cases.
Point of law: Citizenship - Merely because a witness or a proceedee has not produced the land document, it would be sufficient to draw an adverse inference that he is not an Indian.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the claimant, requiring reliable evidence that was not sufficiently provided, leading to the dismissal of the petition declaring the petitioner a foreign....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.