Burden of Proving Citizenship Rests Solely on Proceedee Despite Vague Pleadings or Proffered Unlinked Documents

A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon, against the petitioner, suspecting him to be a foreigner

The petitioner appeared before the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2, Bongaigaon, maintaining he was an Indian citizen by birth.

He submitted several documents, including voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1985, 1997, 2006, and 2014, a 1970 Sale Deed, and a Gaon Panchayat certificate to establish his linkage to his projected grandfather and father

On 22.02.2019, the Tribunal rendered an opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971, finding he failed to discharge his burden of proof

The petitioner challenged this before the Gauhati High Court under Article 226

1. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proving his Indian citizenship as mandated by 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 certiorari jurisdiction

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

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), establishing that facts regarding citizenship (birth, parentage) are within the personal knowledge of the proceedee

principle from Momin Ali v. Union of India regarding the impermissibility of variance between pleadings (written statements) and proof

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023), which limits the writ of certiorari to errors of law apparent on the face of the record rather than a re-evaluation of evidence

The court found that the petitioner’s written statement was vague and failed to meet the disclosure requirements (birth date, place, siblings) set out in Sarbananda Sonowal

the 1966 and 1970 voter lists showed the grandmother to be 20 years older than the grandfather; the 2006 voter list showed the petitioner as 30 and his projected mother as 42, which the court termed "absurd"

There was an unexplained gap in voter listing between 1970 and 1985 for the father, and the petitioner failed to explain why he only appeared in voter lists from 2006 despite reaching voting age in 1994

The court also noted that the Gaonburah certificate was not proved by calling the author as a witness, and a certified copy of the 1970 Sale Deed was only obtained after the Tribunal's judgment, rendering the Tribunal's original rejection of the unverified copy reasonable

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal's order; all interim protections were vacated