Assam HC Upholds Foreigner Finding Against Woman Who Could Not Prove Man In 1966 Voter Roll Was Her Father

The petitioner challenged the Foreigners Tribunal’s opinion declaring her a foreigner who entered Assam after 25 March 1971.

She claimed Indian citizenship through her parents and relied on a 1966 electoral roll, a Gaon Panchayat certificate, and testimony from a person she identified as her brother.

The Tribunal found that the evidence did not reliably establish her relationship to the person named in the 1966 roll and declared her a foreigner.

Before the High Court, she also challenged the Local Verification Officer’s report and argued that the notice did not clearly identify the alleged entry period.

Under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, a “foreigner” is a person who is not an Indian citizen; Section 9 places the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner on that person.

Order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 empowers a Tribunal to give its opinion on whether a person is a foreigner.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 distinguishes the relevant entry-date categories for Assam.

The Court applied Sayam Uddin v. Union of India and Shukurjan Nessa v. Union of India on references arising from Electoral Registration Officer proceedings.

The Court applied Ananda Ghosh v. Union of India and Rukia Begum Barbhuiya v. Union of India on the effect of an omitted or misstated entry period in the notice.

Under Article 226, certiorari is supervisory, not appellate: it does not permit the High Court to reweigh evidence absent jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or a comparable ground for review.

The Court held that the reference arose from an Electoral Registration Officer’s verification exercise and that the pending IM(D)T proceeding had been transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal; it therefore rejected the challenge based on the LVO report and found no basis to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry.

The notice’s stated entry period did not invalidate the opinion because the reference concerned whether the petitioner was a foreigner, and the Tribunal could determine the applicable category from the evidence.

On the merits, the 1966 roll did not link the named Mofijuddin to the petitioner; the Panchayat certificate was not proved through its author, and the brother’s EPIC recorded a different paternal name without supporting documentary evidence.

The Court found that the petitioner had not discharged her burden under Section 9 and that the Tribunal’s findings disclosed no reviewable error.

It dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim bail granted on 20 May 2024, and directed that the consequences of the Tribunal’s opinion follow; the parties were left to bear their own costs.