Electoral rolls establish voter status but do not conclusively prove parentage or lineage.

The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal opinion dated 22 October 2018 declaring him a foreigner who entered Assam from Bangladesh on or after 25 March 1971.

He claimed that he was born in Palahjuri village and relied on electoral rolls from 1966, 1971 and 2005, as well as a PAN card, EPIC and certificates issued by the Village Headman and Gaon Panchayat Secretary.

The Tribunal rejected those materials and held that he had not established his own or his family’s presence in India before the relevant date.

The High Court considered his challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner had failed to establish his citizenship and family linkage was vitiated by jurisdictional error or improper treatment of the evidence.

2. Whether the electoral rolls and other documents relied upon by the petitioner established his lineage and his or his family’s presence in Assam before 25 March 1971.

Section 6-A(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides that qualifying persons of Indian origin who entered Assam before 1 January 1966 and have ordinarily resided there since entry are deemed citizens from that date; the Court considered continuous residence relevant to the petitioner’s claim.

A certified electoral roll may establish that a named person was an elector of the constituency, but does not conclusively establish another person’s parentage or lineage through that elector.

Under Manowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa v. Union of India, a Gaon Panchayat certificate is not, merely by its issuance or countersignature, a public document; its execution and contents require proof, including examination of its author.

Basiron Nessa v. Union of India requires a Gaonburah certificate to be supported by records, rather than oral testimony alone.

Relying on Diluwara Khatun v. Union of India, the Court held that a document bearing the State Emblem when issued by an authority not authorised to use it is inadmissible.

The Court also relied on Mustt. Rabiya Khatun v. Union of India and Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India concerning the insufficiency, without supporting proof, of PAN cards and EPICs as evidence of citizenship or relationship.

In exercising supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction, the High Court would not substitute its view absent jurisdictional error, denial of a hearing, refusal to admit admissible evidence, or a finding dehors the evidence.

The electoral rolls showed names across 1966, 1971 and 2005, but the petitioner did not establish the relationships connecting those individuals to him; the 1971 roll contained only one entry, and the rolls did not prove lineage.

The Court also noted gaps in the petitioner’s account of his family and residence, including his failure to provide relevant personal and family details in his written statement.

The certificates were unsupported by their authors and were found to bear an unauthorised State Emblem, while the PAN card and EPIC lacked corroborating evidence sufficient to establish the claimed relationship or citizenship.

The Court therefore found no jurisdictional error or other basis for interference with the Tribunal’s assessment.

The interim bail granted to the petitioner was vacated and revoked.

The parties were left to bear their own costs.