Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1153

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Pranjal Das, JJ.
Jahera Begum, W/O Lt. Barek Ali – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Represented By The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi And Ors.- Respondents
WP(C) 5927 of 2025
Decided On : 09-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.A. Ahmed
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Payeng, SC, Home Deptt., Mr. G. Sarma, SC, NRC, Mr. P. Sarma, GA, Assam,, Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI, Mr. S.S. Roy, CGC.

The burden of proving citizenship lies solely upon the proceedee who must establish a clear, documented linkage to ancestors through admissible evidence. Documents produced must be formally authenticated by their issuing authorities, otherwise, they fail to discharge the legal burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Citizensip dispute - Burden of proof - Initial burden lies on proceedee to establish citizenship by proving linkage with ancestors - Preponderance of probability is the standard - Essential to produce cogent documentary evidence. (Paras 21, 30)

(B) Evidence - Authentication of documents - Documents like school certificates and caste certificates produced to establish linkage with ancestors must be proved through testimony of the issuing authority - Failure to prove genuineness renders such documents inadmissible for proving linkage. (Paras 24, 27)

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of writ jurisdiction - Court exercises supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction - Interference is not warranted unless there is perversity, illegality, or failure to follow principles of natural justice - Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. (Paras 29, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the tribunal's opinion declaring her a foreigner and an illegal migrant. The petitioner claimed to be a citizen by birth, relying on electoral rolls of her ancestors and other secondary documents to establish her identity and generational linkage. The tribunal rejected her plea, noting the failure to establish the link between the petitioner and the ancestors mentioned in the produced documents.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the petitioner produced electoral rolls of parents, the essential link documents, specifically school and caste certificates, were not proved in the manner required by law, as the issuing authorities were not examined. The court held that without authenticated link evidence, the burden under the statute was not discharged.

Issues: The central issues were the fulfillment of the burden of proof under the governing statute and whether the produced documents provided sufficient evidence of linkage to establish citizenship.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of citizenship dispute, the burden of proof resides strictly with the proceedee to establish identity and ancestry through cogent, admissible documentary evidence. Documentary evidence requires formal proof of its genuineness through examination of the issuing authority. Appellate courts shall restrict themselves to determining if the lower court's decision was rendered in accordance with legal principles, without reappreciating facts.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. case facts and proceeding background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. parties' contentions on citizenship status. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. evaluation of evidence and linkage documents. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 30)
4. burden of proof under foreigners act 1946. (Para 21 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 29)
5. final court decision and order. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

Pranjal Das, J

1. Heard Shri S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the NRC; Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, E.C.I; Shri P. Sarma, learned State Counsel and Shri S.S. Roy, learned CGC.

2. The petitioner, namely, Jahera Begum has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in filing this writ petition, aggrieved by the Judgment and Opinion dated 26.02.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No.FTG/1764/2011, (arising out of Police Enquiry No. 259/2010) - whereby the learned Tribunal returned an opinion against the petitioner by holding that she was unable to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and that she was an illegal migrant who had entered India on or after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory of Bangladesh without any valid documents.

3. The facts in brief may be noticed here under:-

4. A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police Border, Golaghat, under the Foreigners Act, 1946, vide Police Enquiry No. 259/2010 expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner Musstt. Jahera Begum, wife of Md. Barek Ali, of Village No-2, Hatidubi Gaon, under Uriamghat Police Station in the district of Golaghat, Assam. Accordingly, an opinion was sought for from the Foreigners Tribunal regarding her nationality.

5. Upon receipt of the reference, case was registered as mentioned above and notice was issued to the petitioner as proceedee and upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner, as proceedee appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement.

6. Thereafter, the proceeding started and during the proceeding, she adduced the evidence of 3(three) witnesses, being herself, her projected sister and her projected brother. She also exhibited 9(nine) nos. of documents. However, upon completion of the adjudication and upon perusing her evidence and documents, the learned Tribunal returned the finding against her as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition has been filed.

7. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that she is an Indian citizen by birth and that her father's name is Abdul Ali and her grandfather's name is Ahmed Ali and she was married to one Barek Ali. It is contended in the writ petition that the said ancestors of the petitioner have lived in Assam since 1955 or even earlier. There have been also casting votes in all the elections starting from 1955, 1961, 1965 and 1970 and also subsequently. The petitioner herself is stated to be a citizen of India by birth and that her name appeared for the first time in the voters list of 1985 and that she and her husband have also been casting their votes.

8. It is stated that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was without any justification and that the learned Tribunal, by misreading of evidence and not accepting the evidence rendered by the petitioner, wrongly arrived at the finding that she had illegally entered into India on or after 25th March, 1971.

9. As mentioned above, during the proceeding, the petitioner, upon being noticed, appeared and filed a written statement in which she denied being a foreigner and an illegal migrant and contended that she was indeed an Indian citizen by birth. In the written statement, she stated about her parents, namely, Abdul Ali @ Sekh Abdul Ali son of Ahmed Ali and her mother being Nashira Begum. She contended that they were permanent residents of Ekorani

Click Here to Read the rest of this document