A vague written statement and unverified certificates cannot discharge a proceedee’s burden to prove Indian citizenship.

The petitioner challenged the opinion of Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Barpeta, which held her to be a foreigner who had entered Assam after 25 March 1971.

The reference originated under the IM(D)T Act and was transferred to the Tribunal after that Act was struck down.

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner relied on electoral rolls naming her projected grandfather and father, her own testimony, testimony from her projected father, and certificates issued by a village headman and a Gaon Panchayat Secretary.

The Tribunal rejected her case; she sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner discharged her burden of proving that she was not a foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Whether the Tribunal’s opinion disclosed an error warranting interference under the High Court’s certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places on the person concerned the burden of proving that they are not a foreigner, notwithstanding the Indian Evidence Act.

In certiorari proceedings, the High Court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its view for that of the Tribunal; interference is warranted for jurisdictional or apparent legal error, and the remedy remains discretionary.

A proceedee must plead material facts within their knowledge and prove them through cogent evidence; a party cannot ordinarily depart from its pleadings.

A Gaon Panchayat certificate may support linkage to a legacy person but is not, by itself, proof of citizenship and requires verification.

Oral evidence unsupported by reliable documentary evidence is insufficient to establish citizenship or linkage.

The Court found the petitioner’s written statement materially incomplete: it omitted her date or year of birth and the names of her parents and siblings.

The electoral rolls did not name the petitioner, and the records relied upon did not establish the required link between her and the projected grandfather or father; the gap between the 1970 and 1985 rolls and discrepancies concerning ages further weakened the claimed lineage.

The oral evidence also contained inconsistencies about the grandfather’s death and did not reliably establish the petitioner’s relationship to the projected father.

The headman’s and Panchayat Secretary’s evidence did not cure those deficiencies: the headman’s knowledge was limited, while the Secretary had not personally known the petitioner or independently verified the supporting documents.

Applying Section 9 and the limited scope of certiorari review, the Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s factual determination.

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim order was vacated, and consequential action was left to proceed in accordance with law; the Tribunal’s records were directed to be returned.