Citizenship - Burden of proof lies on the individual claiming citizenship to establish linkage with ancestors

Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigners Tribunal's Decision Declaring Rahim Uddin and Family as Foreigners. Petitioners Fail to Establish Lineage; Court Cites Insufficient Evidence and Vague Pleadings

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition of Rahim Uddin and his family, upholding the Foreigners Tribunal's decision that declared them foreigners post-March 25, 1971. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient and reliable evidence to prove their Indian citizenship. The judgment was delivered by Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund.

The case originated from the Foreigners Tribunal in Morigaon, Assam, where Rahim Uddin, along with his family, was unable to establish their citizenship through documented lineage to their ancestors. The tribunal had declared them foreigners after noting the lack of continuity in the evidence provided, such as voter lists and other documents that were either not verified or failed to establish the required ancestry linkage.

The court noted that the burden of proof lies on the individual claiming citizenship, as per the Citizenship Act, 1955, and underlined the significance of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which places the onus on the person whose citizenship is in question to prove the facts that are within their personal knowledge.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Md. S Huda, argued that the tribunal overlooked critical documents such as voters' lists from 1966 and 1970 and a Jamabandi from 1931. However, the court observed that these documents were not corroborated with original records or through witness examination, rendering them inadmissible.

Moreover, the petitioners' failure to include essential details such as the names of their grandparents and their places of birth in their written statement was crucial to the court's decision. The court referenced the Supreme Court's precedents, emphasizing that the pleadings should contain all material facts to substantiate the claim of citizenship, which was not adhered to by the petitioners.

The court concluded that the tribunal's decision was justified and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioners' inability to establish a credible linkage to their Indian ancestry. The ruling underscores the importance of comprehensive and verifiable documentation in citizenship disputes, particularly in Assam, where issues of illegal immigration have long been contentious.

The court's decision aligns with the principles laid out in the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reinforcing the procedural requirements for proving citizenship in India.

Bottom Line:

Citizenship determination - Burden of proof lies on the individual claiming citizenship to establish linkage with ancestors through admissible evidence. Failure to provide cogent and reliable evidence, including necessary lineage details and verified documents, results in dismissal of the claim.

Statutory provisions: Citizenship Act, 1955, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106, Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 9

Rahim Uddin v. Union of India, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2817071