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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15546

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, Shamima Jahan, JJ
Amela Khatun – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C)/4200/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. M. Ahmed
For the Respondents: S.K.Medhi, A. I. Ali, P. Sarmah, G. Sarma

The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act, 1946 rests solely on the proceedee; failure to establish a direct bloodline linkage to an Indian ancestor appearing in documents prior to March 25, 1971, renders the citizenship claim invalid, regardless of identity documents like Voter ID or PAN cards.

Headnote:(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Burden of proof - Citizenship nexus - Claim to citizenship requires establishing a direct bloodline connection to an Indian ancestor whose name appears in documents prior to 25th of March, 1971. (Para 17)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Documents including Voter ID and PAN card do not serve as standalone proof of citizenship and are insufficient to establish linkage with an ancestor, especially if acquired post-reference. (Para 19)

(C) Foreigners Tribunal - Procedures - Evidence of a defence witness that is not subjected to cross-examination due to non-appearance is liable to be expunged; consequently, documents reliant on such evidence remain unproved. (Paras 16, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal which declared her a foreigner of the post-25.03.1971 stream. She claimed to be a citizen by descent, relying on voters' lists of her parents from 1966 and 1970, and her own name in various electoral rolls. A Gift Deed was also submitted to prove linkage with her father.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove the linkage with an Indian ancestor. The evidence of the father as a defence witness was expunged due to his failure to appear for cross-examination, and the documents, specifically the Gift Deed and voters' lists, failed to establish clear ancestry or identity consistency.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal correctly declared the petitioner a foreigner and whether the petitioner successfully established her citizenship linkage under the Foreigners Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act lies entirely on the proceedee, and absent credible, admissible evidence establishing a clear bloodline connection to a pre-1971 ancestor, the claim of citizenship fails.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and facts presented in citizenship disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
2. arguments regarding the admissibility and consideration of defense evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. evidentiary requirements and burden of proving bloodline linkage. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. value of identity documents and impact of non-proved evidentiary records. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. scope of judicial review and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

(Shamima Jahan, J.)

Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated 22.02.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri, in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No. 251/216, corresponding to Ref. No. BNGN IM(D)T Case No. 1798/03, whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream.

FACTS

3. The petitioner stated that she belongs to a very poor family and that she was around 1972 and was brought up at Village-Balagaon under Baghbor Police Station in the district of erstwhile Kamrup, now Barpeta, Assam. The petitioner’s father’s name is Hazrat Ali @ Hazrat Mandal and mother’s name is Sakina Khatun and that the grandfather of the petitioner was Late Darog Ali. She further stated that she had three brothers and four sisters including her, names of which she has mentioned in the petition. The petitioner got married with one Minhaz Ali, son of Abdus Samad under Srijangram Revenue Circle, Bongaigaon. She, thereafter stated that there was no question of her or her family members being foreigner, but the Police committed a mistake and by randomly, without collecting proper information, made the reference before the learned Tribunal, and that no enquiry was made regarding her nationality and further that, the Police never visited her parents’ house or her husband’s house at any point of time.

4. The petitioner, to show her nationality, placed the voters’ list of 1966, 1970, where her parents’ names were included in the said list with House No. 108, for 51 Jania LAC. She, thereafter, stated that her father shifted his residence from Village- Balagaon to Village-Madrassapara, in the district of Bongaigaon for better livelihood. She then stated that the names of father, mother and brothers appeared in the voters’ list of 2010 at Village- Madrassapara, for 34 North Abhayapuri LAC. To further establish her citizenship, she relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card, issued to her father.

5. The petitioner stated that her name appeared in the first time, along with her husband in the voters’ list of 1989 and also in subsequent voters’ list of 1997, 2010, and 2016, under 34 North Abhayapuri LAC. She had also relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card, issued by the Election Commission of India, as well as the Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department, Government of India, to the petitioner. She had also stated that her father, Hazrat Ali executed a Gift Deed, on 26.09.2016, before the Sub-Registrar, Abhayapuri, in her favour.

6. As stated above, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Bongaigaon, made a reference to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2, Abhayapuri, Assam, and the said Tribunal issued notice dated 23.06.2016 to the petitioner and the petitioner on receipt thereof, entered appearance and submitted her written statement. In the written statement submitted on 29.09.2016, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that the notice served upon the petitioner did not disclose any ground as to why the petitioner was suspected 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