Burden of proof under Foreigners Act remains on proceedee; vague pleadings and unverified certificates cannot establish citizenship linkage.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 21.07.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Darrang, Mangaldai, which declared him a foreigner entering India post-25.03.1971

A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Darrang, initiating Case No. 83/SPR/2017

The Petitioner submitted a written statement claiming Indian citizenship by providing voter lists from 1966, 1971, 1997, and 2018, along with a Gaonburah Certificate to establish linkage to his father

The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to discharge the burden of proof, leading to the present writ petition

1. Whether the Petitioner discharged the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to establish Indian citizenship

2. Whether the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal were palpably erroneous or suffered from procedural impropriety warranting interference under Art. 226 certiorari jurisdiction

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

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India regarding the necessity of disclosing specific material facts (date/place of birth, parentage) within the personal knowledge of the proceedee

Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration regarding the non-shifting nature of the onus of proof

Romila Khatun v. Union of India regarding the requirement to prove both the authenticity and the contents of documents

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das regarding the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction, which precludes re-weighing evidence as an appellate body

The Court found the Petitioner’s written statement "absolutely vague" as it failed to disclose essential details like date of birth or complete family history as required by Sarbananda Sonowal

Regarding documentary evidence, the Court noted significant inconsistencies: the 1966 and 1971 voter lists showed different parental names (Moujan Nessa vs. Matujan) and village locations (Bhelenganari vs. No. 3 Nangli Char)

A "huge gap" of 25 years existed between the 1971 list and the 1997 list (where the Petitioner’s name first appeared), which remained unexplained

The Gaonburah Certificate was rejected because the issuer was not examined to prove its contents, and it improperly featured the National Emblem

Applying the standard from Nur Begum v. Union of India, the Court held that since the Petitioner failed to provide a credible linkage to his projected ancestors through contemporaneous records, the Tribunal’s factual findings were not perverse

The Writ Petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the Tribunal's opinion declaring the Petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971 was upheld. The records were ordered returned for consequential legal action