Failure to consider material birth-certificate evidence warrants remand for fresh Foreigners Tribunal determination.

A reference was made by the Senior Superintendent of Police (Border), Guwahati, to the Foreigners’ Tribunal alleging that Md. Sahidul Rahman @ Sahidul Haque, son of Fajrul Sheikh, was a Bangladeshi national who had entered India after 24 March 1971.

The petitioner appeared before the Foreigners’ Tribunal, denied being a foreigner, and claimed Indian citizenship by birth, asserting that he was born in Debottar Hasdaha Part-V, Dhubri, on 20 March 1992.

He examined himself, his projected father Fajrul Sheikh, and the Secretary of the concerned Gaon Panchayat, and exhibited 19 documents, including a birth certificate, electoral rolls from 1966 onwards, voter identity cards, PAN card, land documents, and residency certificates.

The birth certificate recorded the petitioner as “Sahidul Haque” and his father as “Fajlur Rahman,” whereas the petitioner claimed that his father’s correct name was “Fajrul Sheikh.”

The Tribunal rejected his claim and declared him a foreigner who had entered India after the cut-off date by judgment and opinion dated 23 October 2019 in FT Case No. 355/2018.

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Foreigners’ Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider and assess the petitioner’s birth certificate, electoral records, and other documentary evidence while determining his citizenship status.

Whether, in light of the petitioner’s asserted birth in India in 1992, his claim required examination under Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, read with Section 6A of that Act and the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Whether the High Court, exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, could reappreciate the evidence or should instead remit the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden on the person proceeded against to establish that he is not a foreigner, ordinarily through cogent documentary evidence.

Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 applies to persons born in India on or after 1 July 1987 but before commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, requiring that at least one parent be an Indian citizen at the time of birth.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act contains provisions specifically applicable to Assam and was required to be read with Section 3 in determining the petitioner’s claim.

The Court relied on T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa , (1954) 1 SCC 905, and South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip , (2023) 17 SCC 311, for the principle that certiorari is supervisory, not appellate; it may correct jurisdictional errors, violations of natural justice, or patent errors of law apparent on the face of the record, but does not permit the High Court to reweigh evidence or substitute its factual conclusions for those of the Tribunal.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had not discussed the petitioner’s principal document—the birth certificate—despite its relevance to his claim of citizenship by birth.

The document recorded the petitioner’s place and date of birth in Assam and named his father as “Fajlur Rahman,” while the petitioner relied on subsequent electoral records and identity documents showing his father as “Fajrul/Fazurul/Fojrul Sheikh” and sought to explain the variation as a name discrepancy.

Although the High Court noted that the discrepancy had not been formally corrected and that the linkage evidence required careful assessment, it held that it could not itself reappreciate the documentary evidence in certiorari proceedings.

Since the Tribunal had failed to meaningfully analyse material evidence and had not examined the claim under the applicable provisions governing citizenship by birth, the proper course was to quash the opinion and remit the matter for a fresh decision rather than determine the petitioner’s citizenship conclusively.

Pending fresh adjudication, the petitioner was protected from coercive action involving detention or deportation in connection with the reference proceeding; the earlier interim order dated 15 May 2020 was modified accordingly.

The writ petition was disposed of, and the original records were directed to be returned to the Tribunal.