Burden of proving citizenship rests solely on proceedee despite discrepancies in Tribunal notice or lack of rebuttal evidence.

A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta, against the petitioner, Sufia Khatun, questioning her citizenship

The petitioner filed a written statement on April 3, 2017, claiming to be an Indian citizen by birth and citing lineage to her projected grandfather and parents through voter lists from 1966, 1970, and 1997

She also relied on a Gaonburah certificate and oral testimony from her projected brother

On January 19, 2019, the Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Barpeta, declared her a foreigner of the post-March 25, 1971 stream, finding she failed to prove her linkage to the projected ancestors

The petitioner challenged this opinion via writ petition under Article 226

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

2. Whether the inquiry report's alleged incompleteness or the discrepancy in the "stream" mentioned in the notice (1966-1971 vs. post-1971) vitiates the Tribunal's proceeding

3. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by putting clarificatory questions to witnesses

The court applied Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which mandates that the burden of proving citizenship lies solely on the proceedee, notwithstanding the Evidence Act

It relied on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which dictates that facts regarding birth and parentage are within the personal knowledge of the proceedee and must be disclosed in the written statement

Regarding the proof of certificates, the court cited Rupjan Begum v. Union of India (2018) and Romila Khatun v. Union of India (2018), establishing that both the document and its contents must be proved via contemporaneous records

The power of the court to question witnesses was supported by Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act

The court noted that the petitioner’s written statement was vague and failed to provide essential details such as date or place of birth as required by Sonowal

While voter lists of 1966 and 1970 were produced for the projected parents, there was an unexplained 25-year gap until the 1997 list, and no record linked the petitioner to her parents during that interval

The court found the 1997 list suspect due to an unexplained change in the mother’s name

The Gaonburah certificate (Ext-D) was rejected because the issuer (DW-3) was not even born in 1971 and admitted he issued the certificate based on a verbal request without verifying contemporaneous registers

Regarding procedural challenges, the court held that under Ananda Ghosh v. Union of India, a mismatch in the "stream" in the notice does not vitiate the final opinion if the evidence proves the proceedee is a foreigner

The court justified the Tribunal's questioning of witnesses under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to ensure "truth triumphs" when the State was unrepresented

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner is a foreigner of the post-March 25, 1971 stream. The Writ Petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the authorities were directed to proceed in accordance with the law