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) 15572

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, Shamima Jahan, JJ
Shajiran @ Saziran Bewa – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C)/6343/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A A Dewan, B Islam
For the Respondents: Asstt. S.G.I., SC NRC, SC ECI, SC F.T

In a citizenship proceeding, the burden lies on the proceedee to establish linkage to Indian parents through cogent and admissible evidence. Mere oral testimony is insufficient, non-disclosure of material facts creates adverse inferences, and documents bearing unauthorized State Emblems are inadmissible in evidence.

Headnote:(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Citizenship - Burden of proof - Petitioner failed to prove linkage with projected parents - Oral testimony alone is insufficient - Non-disclosure of material facts in pleadings carries adverse inference - Certified copies of voter lists without linkage evidence are inconclusive.

(B) Evidence - Admissibility - Certificates issued by Gaonburah containing State Emblem are inadmissible in evidence under State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 read with State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner who entered India on or after 25.03.1971. She claimed to be a citizen born to parents whose names appeared in 1966 and 1970 electoral rolls, but failed to establish a direct link in the evidence.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the identity of the persons mentioned in the voter lists as her parents. Furthermore, the Gaonburah certificates relied upon by the petitioner contain the State Emblem, rendering them inadmissible under the law. The Tribunal’s opinion was found to be legally sound and devoid of jurisdictional error.

Issues: Whether the petitioner has validly discharged the burden of proving citizenship and whether the documentary evidence (voter lists and Gaonburah certificates) proves the alleged family linkage.

Ratio Decidendi: Citizenship must be proved by cogent, admissible evidence rather than mere oral testimony. Failure to disclose material family details in pleadings leads to adverse inference, and documents containing the unauthorized use of the State Emblem are wholly inadmissible.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the writ petition regarding foreigners tribunal decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's evidentiary claims and reliance on documentation/witnesses. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments comparing the procedural rigor of proof required for citizenship. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. tribunal review of the evidentiary records and omissions in pleadings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. rules of evidence regarding proof of linkage, inadmissibility of certificates, and burden of proof. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. court's refusal to interfere with tribunal findings in supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(CAV)

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3; and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India for respondent no.5.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Shajiran @ Saziran Bewa, has assailed the opinion dated 26.06.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 5th, Barpeta, Assam, in Case No. F.T.(5th) 42/2016, aising out of Reference IM(D)T Case No. 4287(A)/97, by which she was declared to be a foreigner who had entered Assam on or after 25.03.1971.

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the written statement filed by the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had denied the allegation that she was a foreigner and took all the defence relevant to establish that she was not a foreigner.

4) Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1, and in her evidence-on-affidavit the petitioner had reiterated the statements made in her written statement. It was submitted that the petitioner had stated that she is a citizen of India, and born and brought up at village- Balagaon, under Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar, in the then district of Kamrup. Her father’s name is Nabur Uddin Sheikh and her mother’s name is Mahiran Nessa and their names appear in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 of village- Balagaon, 51 No. Jania LAC. She was married to Abdul Rasid, son of Late Abdul Hamid of village- Khelli, Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar, in the district of Barpeta, Assam and her name appeared for the first time along with her husband in the electoral roll of 1985 of village- Khelli under 44 No. Jania LAC. After 1985, she had shifted to village- Balagaon, under Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar (presently Kalgachia), in the district of Barpeta and her name appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 with her husband at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC. Her name also appeared in the electoral roll of 1997 at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC, but marked as ‘D’. A link certificate has been issued in her favour by the Secretary of the Tapeswara Gaon Panchayat in respect of her marriage, which is countersigned by the B.D.O. of Rupshi Development Block and the Gaonburah of village Balagaon and Khelli had issued two separate certificates in respect of her residential identity and marriage linkage. She had stated that her actual name is Shaziran Nessa, which is correctly recorded in all voters’ lists, but in the case record, her name is wrongly written as Shaziran Bewa and that both the names are of one person, i.e. petitioner. In support of her contention, she had exhibited the following documents:-

i. Certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.A)

ii. Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B)

iii. Certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.C)

iv. Certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.D)

v. Certificate by Gaonburah of Balagaon (Ext.E)

vi. Certificate by Gaonburah of Khelli (Ext.F).

5) It was submitted by the learned counse

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