Burden of proving citizenship rests solely on the proceedee via cogent, document-backed linked evidence.

The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal-III, Barpeta, by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta, culminating in F.T. Case No. 1192(III)/2013

The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship by birth (1960) and descent from her father, Mowab Ali, whose name appeared in the 1966 and 1970 Voter Lists

She relied on subsequent Voter Lists (1985–1997), a Gaonburah Certificate, and oral testimony from herself, her projected mother, and brothers

On 17.11.2018, the Tribunal declared the petitioner a foreigner, finding she failed to discharge her burden of proof

The petitioner challenged this opinion via the present writ petition under Article 226

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

2. Whether the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under certiorari jurisdiction

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 hold that a proceedee must specifically disclose date/place of birth and parental details within their personal knowledge

Regarding documentary proof, it applied Romila Khatun v. Union of India (2018) and Rupajan Begum v. Union of India (2018), establishing that certificates must be proved by both authenticity and the truthfulness of contents via contemporaneous records

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023) regarding the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226

The Court found the petitioner’s written statement vague and non-compliant with the disclosure requirements of Sarbananda Sonowal, as it lacked specific birth and marital details

Examining the evidence, the Court noted major inconsistencies in the father’s name ("Mowab" vs "Nobab") and age (39 in 1970 vs 65 in 1985) across Voter Lists

The court observed a lack of continuity in the lists and the absence of any document linking the petitioner to her projected parents/siblings prior to her marriage

The Gaonburah and Gaon Panchayat certificates were rejected because they were issued based on the petitioner's self-provided Voter List of 1997 rather than personal knowledge or official records, and the relevant issue registers were not produced

Applying the principle that oral testimony without corroborating contemporaneous documentary evidence is insufficient in such proceedings (Bijoy Das v. UOI), the Court held the Petitioner failed to establish her lineage

Under certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court declined to re-weigh evidence, finding no procedural impropriety in the Tribunal’s decision-making process. The Writ Petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the Tribunal’s opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971 was upheld