Assam HC Upholds Foreigner Finding After Man Failed To Link Himself To His Alleged Grandparents’ 1966 And 1970 Voter Rolls

The petitioner challenged the Foreigners Tribunal’s opinion declaring him a foreigner who had entered India on or after 25 March 1971.

He relied on electoral rolls from 1966 and 1970, said to record his projected grandfather, later electoral rolls recording the petitioner and his projected family, and a Gaonburah certificate.

The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient and inconsistent, and held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving Indian citizenship.

In the writ petition, the petitioner contended that the electoral rolls established his family linkage; the State opposed the petition, citing discrepancies in the evidence and the absence of proof of the Gaonburah certificate.

The Tribunal’s opinion proceeded on the petitioner’s obligation to discharge the burden of proving Indian citizenship, and classified him under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1940, as recited in the judgment.

In Afuja Begum v. Union of India, 2018 3 GauLT 20, the Court held that a Gaonburah is not authorised to use the State Emblem on a certificate; under Rule 10 of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007, read with the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, such unauthorised use renders the certificate inadmissible in evidence.

The electoral rolls did not reliably establish the claimed lineage.

The petitioner had not identified the projected grandmother in his written statement, and the name he gave in cross-examination did not match the name recorded for the wife of his projected grandfather in the 1966 and 1970 rolls.

The records also contained material inconsistencies concerning the projected family relationships and ages, while the petitioner offered no explanation for the gap between the 1970 and 1993 rolls.

The Gaonburah certificate was the only document linking the petitioner to his projected father, but it bore the State Emblem and therefore had no evidentiary value under the rule applied in Afuja Begum.

The Court consequently found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s assessment warranting writ interference.

It directed that the Tribunal’s records be returned with a copy of the order.