Burden of Proof for Citizenship: Failure to Establish Direct Ancestral Linkage Through Admissible Documentary Evidence

The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 2nd, Guwahati (FT Case No. 87 of 2018), on suspicion of being a post-1971 illegal immigrant.

The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship by descent, asserting his grandfather, Dil Mohammad, lived in Village Balikuri Nonke and appeared in the 1951 NRC and 1966/1970 voters' lists.

He claimed his family shifted to Village Bhograndha in 1992 due to river erosion.

The petitioner submitted several voters' lists (1966–2015), a Gaonburah certificate, and land revenue receipts to establish his lineage.

On 04.04.2019, the Tribunal declared him a foreigner, citing a lack of linkage between the petitioner, his father, and the projected grandfather.

1. Whether the petitioner established a valid legal linkage to an Indian ancestor residing in Assam prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971.

2. Whether documents such as NRC 1951 extracts, Gaonburah certificates, and Voter ID cards are admissible as substantive evidence to prove citizenship.

The court applied Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proof on the proceedee to establish citizenship.

Regarding the admissibility of NRC 1951, the court relied on Mazam Ali v. Union of India [2024 (4) GLT 274] and Bhanbhasa Sheikh v. Union of India [1970 Assam LR 206], which held that NRC extracts are inadmissible under Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948.

The court further applied the principle that a Gaonburah certificate must be proved by its author’s personal knowledge, and Voter ID cards serve only for identification, not as proof of citizenship.

The court found the petitioner failed to bridge the "linkage" gap between himself and his projected grandfather.

While Dil Mohammad appeared in 1966/1970 lists, the petitioner's father (Abdul Rezzak) only appeared in 1989 at age 34; he should have been listed with his father in the 1985 rolls, but was not, leaving the bloodline unverified.

Discrepancies in the mother's identity (Nabiran Nessa vs. Nabiya Begum) and age (a 2-year increase over an 8-year span) further weakened the claim.

The Gaonburah certificate (Ext-M) was deemed unreliable because the witness (DW-3) admitted he only knew the petitioner from 1992 and issued the certificate based on the petitioner's own documents rather than personal knowledge.

Lastly, the court reiterated its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, refusing to overturn the Tribunal's factual findings unless perverse.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's opinion dated 04.04.2019 declaring the petitioner a foreigner was upheld, with the court ordering the immediate return of the case records for consequential action in accordance with the law.