Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigners Tribunal's Decision Declaring Lalu Sheikh a Foreigner Court affirms tribunal's findings, emphasizing burden of proof under the Foreigners Act, 1946
In a significant decision, the Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Bongaigaon, declaring Lalu Sheikh, also known as Malu Sheikh, as a foreigner who entered India post March 25, 1971. The bench comprising Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Ms. Susmita Phukan Khaund delivered their judgment on December 18, 2025, reinforcing the tribunal's findings and emphasizing the legal obligations under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The case arose following a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon District, leading to proceedings against Sheikh. Despite submitting various documents, including voter lists from 1966 to 2014 and a PAN card, Sheikh was unable to convincingly establish his citizenship. The High Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies squarely on the individual claiming Indian citizenship, as per Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Counsel for Sheikh, Shri M. H. Talukdar, argued that the evidence presented was adequate and uncontested, warranting recognition of his citizenship. However, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the names and ages in the voter lists and absence of crucial information regarding Sheikh's birth and family details in his written statement. The High Court concurred, observing that Sheikh had failed to discharge the burden of proof satisfactorily.
Ms. A. Verma, representing the Home Department and NRC, contended that the tribunal's procedures were consistent with legal standards, and rebuttal evidence was unnecessary given Sheikh's inadequate proof. The court underscored that under writ jurisdiction, it reviews the decision-making process of tribunals, not the factual findings unless procedural errors are apparent.
Referencing several precedents, the judgment highlighted the importance of disclosing all pertinent facts in citizenship claims. It pointed to the Supreme Court's stance in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, emphasizing the individual's responsibility to provide evidence of citizenship due to the critical nature of national security and internal disturbances caused by illegal immigration.
Ultimately, the High Court found no procedural impropriety or illegality in the tribunal's decision-making process, dismissing the writ petition and vacating any interim reliefs previously granted. The court directed that actions pursuant to the tribunal's opinion should proceed in accordance with the law.
Bottom Line:
Under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner lies upon the individual asserting citizenship. A Writ Court under Article 226 does not act as an Appellate Court but reviews the decision-making process of the Tribunal.
Statutory provision(s): Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 9, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Lalu Sheikh @ Malu Sheikh v. Union of India, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2823645
