Burden of Proving Citizenship Rests Solely on Proceedee; Improperly Issued Birth Certificates Lack Probative Value

The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Bongaigaon, by the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon, to determine her citizenship status

The petitioner filed a written statement claiming to be an Indian citizen by birth, asserting she was born in 1985 to Hazrat Ali and Hazera Khatun

She produced several documents, including Voter Lists from 1966 to 2016 and a Birth Certificate issued in 2011

The Tribunal, vide order dated 24.04.2019, declared the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971, finding she failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

The petitioner challenged this opinion through a writ of certiorari before the Gauhati High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish her linkage to her projected Indian ancestors and her status as an Indian citizen

2. Whether the Birth Certificate (Ext. 1) issued 26 years after the alleged date of birth without following statutory procedures possesses probative value

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

Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as established in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, which provides that facts regarding birth and parentage are within the personal knowledge of the proceedee

Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which requires an order from a First Class Magistrate for registrations delayed over one year

Precedents such as Rustom Ali v. Union of India and Romila Khatun v. Union of India were used to emphasize that documents must be proved through contemporaneous records and statutory compliance

The court found the petitioner's written statement vague and lacking essential details regarding her place of birth and parentage as required by Sarbananda Sonowal

While the petitioner produced Voter Lists of projected grandparents and parents (1966-1997), the court noted these do not serve as "link documents" for the petitioner herself

The only potential link, the Birth Certificate (Ext. 1), was discredited because it was issued in 2011 (26 years after the birth) without evidence of the mandatory Magistrate’s order required u/s 13(3) of the Act of 1969

Testimony from the Court Witness (in-charge of the health centre) revealed significant discrepancies: the folio number on the certificate (2603714) did not match the counterfoil number (235130), and the address in the register had been altered

Consequently, the court held that oral testimony unsupported by valid documentary evidence or contemporaneous records is insufficient to prove citizenship

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