Burden of proving citizenship rests solely on the proceedee regardless of investigation flaws or oral testimony.

The petitioner, Sukuron Nesa, challenged an opinion dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2nd, Dhubri, which declared her a foreigner post-25.03.1971.

A reference was originally made against her by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri.

The petitioner submitted a written statement along with several documents, including a marriage Kabinnama (1993), land records (Draft Chitha and Final Khatian), and various Electoral Rolls ranging from 1966 to 2018, seeking to establish linkage to her projected father, Habez Uddin.

Three witnesses, including the petitioner and her projected father, testified before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to establish her Indian citizenship by proving linkage to her projected ancestors.

2. Whether the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal suffered from any jurisdictional or procedural error warranting interference under the High Court's certiorari jurisdiction.

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

The court relied on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) to emphasize that facts regarding birth and parentage are within the personal knowledge of the proceedee per Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The court applied the principle from Romila Khatun v. Union of India (2018) that documents must be proved by contemporaneous records and their contents verified.

Regarding certiorari jurisdiction, the court followed Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023), holding that a Writ Court does not act as an Appellate Tribunal and cannot re-weigh evidence.

The Court found that the petitioner's written statement was "absolutely vague" and failed to provide essential details such as date or place of birth as required by the Sonowal precedent.

The documentary evidence was deemed insufficient: the 1993 Kabinnama was not proved by a Kazi, and the 1997 Voters List (prefixing "D" to her name) was an uncertified copy.

The court highlighted significant discrepancies in the land records (Ext. 2 and 3); specifically, the Draft Chitha showed the petitioner's name being inserted in 2015 while leaving out her brothers, and the land descriptions in the Chitha and the Khatian did not match.

Following Sayam Uddin v. Union of India, the court rejected the argument that a faulty investigation report (LVO) could benefit the proceedee, as she still had the opportunity to prove her case before the Tribunal.

The oral testimony of the projected father (DW2) was insufficient without corroborating, consistent documentary evidence.

The Court affirmed that the Tribunal’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of facts and evidence, and no error was apparent on the face of the record; Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim stay, and ordered the return of records to the Tribunal for necessary action.