Failure to establish documentary linkage with ancestors pre-1971 justifies foreigner declaration despite subsequent voter enrollment.

The petitioner, Ranjit Das, challenged the judgment dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 4th, Cachar at Silchar, which declared him a foreigner who entered India illegally after 25.03.1971.

The case originated from a reference by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar, under the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964.

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a written statement (unsupported by affidavit) and testified as DW-1, providing documents including a 1965 voters list featuring his purported parents.

The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish a linkage between the petitioner and his ancestors prior to the cutoff date.

1. Whether there was any legal infirmity in the Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish his Indian citizenship.

2. Whether the petitioner could be granted liberty to seek benefits under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) despite the dismissal of the writ petition.

The court primarily applied Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving citizenship upon the person so claiming.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended in 1985), which establishes March 25, 1971, as the cutoff date for detection and representation of foreigners in Assam.

The court acknowledged the potential applicability of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, regarding relief for certain classes of persons.

The High Court scrutinized the evidence and observed that many documents relied upon by the petitioner, such as the 1970 and 1989 voters lists, were either not exhibited before the Tribunal or were obtained after the Tribunal's judgment was pronounced.

Specifically, while the petitioner claimed his father’s name appeared in the 1965 and 1970 voters lists, he failed to provide "link documentary evidence" to legally connect himself to those individuals.

The court noted that in the absence of a documented linkage prior to 1971, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act.

The court found no irregularity in the Tribunal's conclusion that the petitioner belonged to the post-1971 stream of illegal migrants.

Taking note of the petitioner's alternative submission, the Court granted him liberty to approach the Appropriate Authority to seek benefits under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, to be considered in accordance with the prescribed law.