SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 117

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Mr. A. Das, Mr C. Kalita, Mr. M. Ali, Mr. S. Hoque, Mr. S. Islam
For the Respondent:Mr. U.K. Goswami, CGC, Mr. H. Kuli on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, SC, ECI, Mr. G. Sarma, SC, Mr. H. K. Hazarika, Jr. Govt. Advocate

The burden of proof for establishing citizenship lies on the individual, necessitating credible and coherent evidence, which must be reliable and consistent.

Headnote:(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Appellant declared foreigner after Tribunal found insufficient evidence of citizenship - Petitioner failed to establish lineage through documents, majority of which contained discrepancies, leading to rejection of evidence - The petitioner did not disclose names of immediate family members nor provide reliable documentation to substantiate claims of citizenship. (Paras 19-40)

(B) Admissibility of Evidence - The Tribunal correctly determined that unreliable and manipulated documents cannot be accepted as credible proof of citizenship, placing burden on the petitioner to establish lineage and nationality. (Paras 30-41)

(C) Burden of Proof - Clarification that the onus lies on the individual asserting citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, establishing that documentation and evidence must be coherent and verifiable. (Paras 30 and 41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the Tribunal's finding that she entered India post-1971, providing various documents to establish citizenship. Despite evidence presented, the Tribunal found key documents unreliable due to inconsistencies (Paras 1-13).

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was upheld, as the petitioner failed to prove her citizenship and lineage based on the evidence provided (Paras 39-41).

Issues: The main issues included the authenticity of submitted documents, the petitioner’s lineage, and the adequacy of evidence to establish citizenship.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's decision emphasized the necessity for reliable and consistent documentation. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that suggestions of document manipulation rendered submissions untrustworthy, and affirmed that the petitioner did not satisfactorily establish her claim of citizenship.

Result: Petition dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top