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) 979

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ.
Saken Ali S/O Babur Ali - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.4946 of 2017
Decided On : 24-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. G. Sarma, Ms. K. Phukan, Mr. P. Sarma, Mr. A.I. Ali, Advocate

In citizenship proceedings, the statutory burden of proof rests entirely on the individual to provide consistent and corroborated documentary evidence. Oral testimony, when contradictory or unsupported by verifiable records that link the individual to ancestral residency prior to the cut-off date, is insufficient to rebut the status of a foreigner.

Headnote:(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Citizenship - Burden of proof - The burden remains on the person suspected of being a foreigner to prove their status through cogent, reliable, and admissible documentary evidence. Mere oral testimony, especially when contradictory or beyond initial pleadings, is insufficient to discharge the statutory burden of proof. (Paras 9, 22, 23, 28)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Power under constitution - Supervisory jurisdiction is restricted to ensuring adherence to jurisdictional limits and correcting manifest injustice or perversity. Findings of fact made by a specialized tribunal will not be disturbed simply because an alternative view is possible or because of minor record discrepancies. (Para 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was declared a foreigner by a specialized tribunal after failing to substantiate claims of citizenship. The defense relied on contradictory oral testimony and documents that failed to establish a clear linkage to ancestors residing in the country prior to the mandatory cut-off date. The petitioner challenged the opinion, alleging procedural flaws in the reference and the appreciation of evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court held that all material facts must be pleaded and supported by consistent evidence. The petitioner failed to provide specific documentation linking his identity to parents or grandparents listed in records prior to the cut-off date. Furthermore, substantial contradictions regarding family details between the testimony provided and the written statements, coupled with the failure to introduce crucial documents during the initial proceedings, justified the conclusion of the tribunal.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof, whether the factual findings were based on sufficient evidence as pleaded, and whether the reference and inquiry proceedings were legally and procedurally compliant.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings concerning citizenship, the legal burden of proof lies entirely on the individual. Documentation must be consistent with the pleadings and must affirmatively prove ancestry. Where testimony is contradictory and lacks corroborative documentary support, it cannot sustain a claim of citizenship. As the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and arrived at a finding based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, interference under supervisory jurisdiction is not warranted.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and evidence regarding the petitioner's claim of indian citizenship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. tribunal rejection of evidence due to material contradictions and lack of supporting proof. (Para 8 , 9)
3. conflicting contentions of the petitioner and respondents regarding the admissibility of evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. procedural failure to include key documents or facts in the original pleadings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. burden of proof lies with the suspect to establish linkage through cogent, admissible evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. jurisdictional validity of tribunal references despite procedural irregularities in initial inquiries. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction and final order affirming citizenship status. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT, Border matters and NRC for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Saken Ali, has assailed the opinion dated 17.07.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Goalpara, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 751/G/2006 [arising out of Ref. Case No. GLP(B)/Doubtful IM/98/7196; ERO Case No. 158-98/38], thereby declaring him to be a foreigner, who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971.

3. In his written statement that was filed on 10.09.2008, apart from usual statements denying that he was a foreigner, the petitioner had stated that he was born in village- Katlamari, under River Police Station, Pancharatna, Dist. Goalpara. The name of his father is Babur Ali, whose name is enlisted in the voter list of 1966 of village- South Katlamari, under 43 Bongaigaon LAC. The petitioner had also casted his vote previously at Khutamari Voting Centre. The name of Khanu Sk, petitioner’s grandfather appeared in the said voter list. The petitioner is presently staying in village- Khutamari, PS and Dist. Goalpara, Assam, as river Brahmaputra had eroded his residence of 19 years. It was also stated that the case was filed against the petitioner for harassment. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner be declared not a foreigner but an Indian Citizen.

4. In support of his defence, the petitioner had examined himself as DW-1. Apart from reiterating the statements made in his written statement, the petitioner had stated that the name of his father- Babur Ali; grandfather- Thanu Sheikh, grandmother- Chambuli Nessa, paternal uncle- Azid Sheikh and paternal aunt- Sahar Bhanu, appeared in the same house in the voter list of 1970 of village- Dakshin Katlamari Part, under 43 Bongaigaon LAC. The name of his parents, Babur Ali and Shaharun Nessa are recorded in the voter list of 1979 of village- 193 Katlamari, under 38 Goalpara West LAC, and the names of his grandfather- Thanu Sheikh, @ Khanu Sheikh and paternal uncle- Amzadali appeared in the same house in the said voter list. It was also stated that Village-Katlamari was eroded in the River Brahmaputra and therefore, his father along with his family members including him shifted to village- Khutamari under Balijana Circle, P.S., Sub-Division and Dist. Goalpara. His name was first enumerated and appeared in the voter list of 1989 of village- Khutamari under 38 Goalpara LAC, and the names of his parents, Babor Ali and Saharun Nessa were also recorded under the same house of the said voter list. His name was also recorded in the voter list of 1997 village No.7 Khutamari, under 38 Goalpara West LAC, and the names of his parents, Babor Ali and Saharun Nessa and his wife Johura Khatun are also recorded under the same house of t

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