Burden of proving citizenship remains on the proceedee and cannot be discharged through unverified certificates or vague pleadings.

The Superintendent of Police (Border), Kamrup, made a reference against the petitioner, suspecting her to be a foreigner.

The case was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India.

The petitioner filed a written statement claiming Indian citizenship by birth, asserting she was the daughter of Bachu Mia.

She produced various documents, including voters lists from 1966 to 2018, land revenue receipts, a marriage certificate, and a Gaonburha certificate.

The Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (R), in G.F.T. Case No. 991/2017, declared her a foreigner post-25.03.1971, finding she failed to discharge her burden of proof.

The petitioner challenged this opinion via a writ of certiorari.

1. Whether the petitioner 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 procedural impropriety warranting interference under Article 226.

The court applied Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which mandates that the burden of proving a person is not a foreigner lies strictly upon that person, notwithstanding the Indian Evidence Act.

It relied on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which established that a proceedee must specifically disclose their date of birth, place of birth, and parental details to discharge this burden.

Under Rupjan Begum v. Union of India (2018) and Romila Khatun v. Union of India (2018), certificates (like those from a Gaonburha) must be proved by the issuing authority using contemporaneous records to establish the truthfulness of their contents.

The court applied the principles of certiorari jurisdiction as defined in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023), stating a High Court does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-weigh evidence unless the lower order is palpably erroneous.

The Court found the petitioner’s written statement "absolutely vague" as it lacked essential biographical details required by the Sonowal precedent.

Regarding documentary evidence, the Court noted that the 1971 voters list was a photocopy and the application for a certified copy was legally defective as it wasn't filed by the elector herself.

Furthermore, the 1966 and 1970 voters lists failed to provide a "linkage" between the petitioner and the projected ancestors.

The marriage certificate was rejected because the Kazi (DW2) failed to appear for cross-examination, rendering his testimony inadmissible.

The Gaonburha's (DW3) certificate was deemed unreliable because he was appointed in 2006 (long after the alleged events), lacked personal knowledge, and failed to produce a Certificate Issue Register.

Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish the mandatory "linkage" to any Indian predecessor prior to the 1971 cutoff.

The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with the Tribunal’s findings of fact in its supervisory jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim protection was vacated, and the Tribunal’s opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971 was upheld.