Burden of proving citizenship rests solely on the proceedee regardless of rebuttal evidence under Foreigners Act.

A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon, against the petitioner, leading to F.T. Case No. 07/2017

The petitioner filed a written statement and produced documents, including voter lists (1966, 1970, 2018), a Jamabandi, and a Gaonburah certificate, to prove his Indian citizenship

On 10.10.2018, the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2nd, Morigaon, declared the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971, finding he failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

The petitioner challenged this opinion via a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution

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

2. Whether the findings of fact by the Tribunal were perverse or legally infirm, warranting interference under the High Court's certiorari jurisdiction

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

Constitutional Bench decision in Ghaus Mohammad v. Union of India and Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration regarding the absolute nature of this burden

Principles of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, which require a proceedee to disclose personal knowledge of birth details and parentage

Rupajan Begum v. Union of India and Romila Khatun v. Union of India, establishing that both the authenticity and the truthfulness of the contents of a document must be proved via contemporaneous records

The Court found the petitioner's written statement vague and non-compliant with the Sarbananda Sonowal standards, as it lacked specific birth and parentage details

The documentary evidence was found inconsistent: while the 1966 and 1970 voter lists cited "A. Hekim/A. Hekan" as the father, there was a 35-year gap until the 2005 list

The court noted the petitioner’s name first appeared in the 2018 voter list at age 33, failing to explain his absence from previous lists since becoming eligible at age 18 in 2003

Inconsistencies in the mother’s name (Hazera Khatun vs. Rabia Khatun) and the omission of siblings in the pleadings undermined the petitioner's credibility

The Gaonburah certificate was rejected as the issuing authority was not examined to prove its contents

The petitioner failed to establish a legal "link" to his projected ancestors prior to the 1971 cutoff

The writ petition was dismissed; the Tribunal's order declaring the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971 was upheld, and the interim protection was vacated

Case records were ordered returned to the Tribunal for consequential action