Burden of proving citizenship rests solely on the proceedee; vague pleadings and uncorroborated documents fail to discharge Section 9 onus.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 3rd, Morigaon in F.T. Case No. 10/2015, which declared him a foreigner post-25.03.1971

A reference was made against the Petitioner by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon

The Petitioner submitted various documents, including land records of a projected grandfather (Selamot SK) and voter lists of a projected father (Nantu/A. Rahim)

the Tribunal found the Petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

The Petitioner then invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226

1. Whether the Petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

2. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Foreigners Tribunal are liable to be interfered with under the High Court’s certiorari jurisdiction

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

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, which established that facts regarding birth and parentage are within the personal knowledge of the proceedee

Romila Khatun v. Union of India that contents of documents must be proved by contemporaneous records

Rupjan Begum v. Union of India regarding the proof required for certificates

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das to define the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s written statement was vague and lacked essential details like date/place of birth or family history as required by the Sonowal precedent

There were major inconsistencies in the evidence: the projected father’s name shifted from "Nantu" (1966/1970 voter lists) to "A. Rahim" (1993 list) without adequate explanation

The Petitioner’s name first appeared in the 1993 voter list at age 37, leaving a gap from when he became eligible in 1977

The Gaon Burah certificate (Ext. G) was rejected because the author was not examined and it contained an unauthorized National Emblem

The court also dismissed the Petitioner’s self-serving affidavit (Ext. I) intended to explain name discrepancies, holding that such affidavits are not "proof in the eye of law" per Abdul Sheikh v. UOI

The Court held that in its supervisory capacity, it cannot re-weigh evidence or act as an appellate body. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, the Tribunal's opinion declaring the Petitioner a foreigner was upheld, and the records were ordered to be returned to the Foreigners Tribunal for further action