Burden of Proof for Citizenship Rests Solely on Proceedee Despite Discrepancies in Electoral Records

The petitioner challenged an order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 11, Barpeta, which declared her a foreigner post-25.03.1971

A reference was made against her by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta

The petitioner submitted a written statement claiming Indian citizenship by birth, relying on Voter Lists from 1965, 1970, 1989, and 1997, alongside oral testimony from herself and two projected brothers

The Tribunal found she failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, noting discrepancies in parental names, ages, and addresses across the documents

1. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish her Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

2. Whether the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal suffered from any perversity or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Article 226

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which mandates that the burden of proving a person is not a foreigner lies solely on the proceedee, notwithstanding the Indian Evidence Act

The principle from Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, establishing that citizenship facts (birth date/place, parentage) are within the personal knowledge of the proceedee per Section 106 of the Evidence Act

The holding in Basiron Bibi v. Union of India that a proceedee cannot selectively rely on favorable parts of a document while ignoring discrepancies

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das was applied to define the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction, which precludes re-weighing evidence

The Court observed that the petitioner’s written statement was "absolutely vague" and failed to meet the disclosure requirements set by Sarbananda Sonowal

Analysis of the 1970 Voter List revealed a physiological absurdity: the projected mother was 35 years old while the projected elder brother was 25

Major inconsistencies were noted, including the mother’s name changing from "Joymon Nessa" to "Jamela Nessa," frequent unexplained changes in residence, and the disappearance of family members from subsequent lists

The Court rejected the oral testimony of DW-3 as it lacked documentary support and failed to synchronize with any Voter List

It held that in matters of national security and citizenship, oral evidence cannot override material documentary discrepancies

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the Tribunal's opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner was upheld