Foreigners Act, 1946 - Burden of proof - Voter lists and other supporting evidence can substantiate claims of citizenship
Gauhati High Court Overturns Foreigners Tribunal's Decision Declaring Ramesh Ch. Debnath a Foreigner. The High Court emphasizes the burden of proof lies on the proceedee and highlights the importance of voter lists in establishing citizenship.
News Report:
In a significant development, the Gauhati High Court has overturned a decision by the Foreigners Tribunal that had declared Ramesh Ch. Debnath a foreigner post 25th March 1971. The decision, originally rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal (2nd) Darrang, Mangaldai in FT Case No. 388/2007, was challenged by Debnath through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Rajesh Mazumdar, underscored the importance of proving Indian citizenship in proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies squarely on the proceedee, as stipulated by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which mandates that the individual must provide cogent evidence to establish their citizenship.
Debnath had presented various documents, including voter lists from 1965, 1993, 2005, and 2014, along with his Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and a certified copy of an order from the IMDT Case No. 413/90. Despite this, the Foreigners Tribunal had concluded that Debnath failed to discharge the burden of proof, a decision the High Court found unsustainable.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had established his ordinary residence in Assam since 1965 through these voter lists and the proceedings under the IMDT Act. The court emphasized that while the Foreigners Tribunal's findings of fact are generally not interfered with, it can examine the decision-making process for errors of law.
The court's decision highlights the critical role of voter lists in substantiating claims of citizenship, particularly in cases involving allegations of foreign origin. It also underscores the High Court's limited role in such writ jurisdiction, focusing on the process rather than re-evaluating evidence.
In conclusion, the Gauhati High Court's ruling not only provides relief to Ramesh Ch. Debnath but also sets a precedent for the evaluation of evidence in citizenship determination cases under the Foreigners Act.
Bottom Line:
Citizenship determination under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish their Indian citizenship - Voter lists and other supporting evidence can substantiate claims of citizenship if adequately proved.
Statutory provision(s):
Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 9, Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 6A(2), Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Ramesh Ch. Debnath v. Union of India, (Gauhati)(DB : Law Finder Doc id # 2781487
