A foreigner declaration stands where the person fails to prove pre-1971 family linkage with reliable evidence.

The petitioner challenged the Foreigners Tribunal’s opinion declaring him a foreigner who had entered Assam from the specified territory after 25 March 1971

After an earlier ex parte opinion was set aside, he was given an opportunity to prove his case under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

He relied on, among other documents, a 1951 NRC entry for his projected father, voter lists, land records, and certificates from the Gaonburah and Gaon Panchayat; he and his projected elder brother also testified

The Tribunal rejected the evidence and answered the reference in the affirmative

The petitioner then sought judicial review of that opinion under Article 226

Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner’s documentary and oral evidence and finding that he had failed to establish his Indian citizenship and linkage to his projected family

Whether the Tribunal’s opinion was vitiated by jurisdictional error or denial of an opportunity of hearing, warranting interference under Article 226

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden on the person concerned to establish that he is not a foreigner

Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 bars inspection of census records and their admissibility in evidence

The Court relied on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, for the need to establish relevant particulars—including date and place of birth and family details—in a citizenship claim

It also relied on Bhanbasa Seikh v. Union of India, AIR 1970 A&N 206, as approved in Moslem Mandal v. State of Assam, 2010 (2) GLT 1, concerning the evidentiary bar on census records

A Gaonburah certificate, absent contemporaneous supporting records, does not by itself prove citizenship or linkage; the Court referred to Jabeda Begum v. Union of India, (2021) 1 GLR 59, and Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579

In supervisory jurisdiction, the Court does not substitute its view for the Tribunal’s absent jurisdictional error, refusal to admit admissible evidence, or a finding unsupported by the record

The Court held that the 1951 NRC material was not an admissible primary record and was, in any event, subject to the statutory bar on census records

The petitioner’s evidence did not reliably establish his asserted family linkage: his accounts of his father’s death differed, the family members were not shown together in the exhibited records, and the land mutation naming the petitioner and Rajab Ali was made in 2011 without explanation for excluding other siblings

The Gaonburah and Panchayat certificates lacked proof through their authors or contemporaneous records, while the post-1971 voter lists did not establish the necessary pre-1971 linkage

In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment in supervisory jurisdiction

The writ petition was dismissed, the bail granted to the petitioner was revoked, and the consequences of the Tribunal’s opinion were to follow