Assam HC Upholds Woman’s Post-1971 Foreigner Declaration, Finding Voter Rolls Did Not Establish Her Claimed Parentage

The petitioner challenged the opinion dated 25 July 2019 of Foreigners Tribunal No. 8, Tezpur, declaring her a foreigner.

The reference originated from an Electoral Registration Officer’s inquiry during revision of the electoral roll; the Local Verification Officer’s report left several columns blank.

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner relied on electoral rolls, land records, a sale deed, PAN and EPIC cards, and a Gaonburah certificate to establish her claimed descent from Indian residents. She also examined herself, her mother, an Election Branch official, and a Gaonburah.

The Tribunal held that she had not discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden on a person proceeded against to establish that they are not a foreigner.

Under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the competent authority may refer the question of a person’s foreigner status to a Tribunal.

In references arising from electoral-roll verification, the Electoral Registration Officer exercises a quasi-judicial function; the Superintendent of Police (Border) forwards the reference and does not conduct a further inquiry or sit in review of the ERO’s decision (*Sayam Uddin v. Union of India*, as discussed at pp. 19–21).

Article 226 certiorari jurisdiction does not permit the High Court to act as an appellate court to reassess evidence, but allows intervention for jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or an error apparent on the record (*Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das*, quoted at p. 22).

The Court also relied on its precedents treating unsupported PAN and EPIC cards as insufficient proof of citizenship, and a Gaonburah certificate bearing the State Emblem, when used without authority, as inadmissible.

The Court held that the proceedings arose from an ERO-led electoral-roll verification, not an investigation under the Foreigners Act; applying *Sayam Uddin*, it rejected the argument that blank columns in the report invalidated the reference and noted that the petitioner had not raised the relevant objection before the Tribunal.

On the merits, the Court found that the electoral rolls did not reliably link the petitioner to the persons claimed as her parents: the relevant entries related to different villages and raised age discrepancies, including a short age gap between the projected mother and elder brother.

The land records did not establish inheritance or linkage, while the PAN and EPIC cards were unsupported by independent evidence and post-reference documents.

The Gaonburah evidence was inconsistent with the petitioner’s account of when her father lived at Alisinga, and the certificate was inadmissible because it bore the State Emblem without authority.

The Court found no perversity or other basis for certiorari interference.

It dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s opinion declaring her a foreigner post-25 March 1971.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs, and the interim bail granted to the petitioner was recalled and revoked.