Failure to establish parentage linkage and provide corroborating document evidence results in declaration as a foreigner.

The petitioner, Insan Ali, was referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5th, Morigaon, by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon, on suspicion of having entered India (Assam) after the cutoff date of March 25, 1971

The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship by birth, asserting that his father, Nurul Islam (@ Nurul), was enlisted in the voters’ lists of 1965 and 1970 in the Lahorighat Constituency

The petitioner relied on the 1989 voters' list, a Gaonburah certificate, and a Panchayat certificate to establish his linkage to his father

By an opinion dated July 26, 2016, the Tribunal declared the petitioner a foreigner of the post-1971 stream due to discrepancies in names, lack of corroborating evidence for his residency, and failure to prove linkage

The petitioner challenged this opinion via the present writ petition

1. Whether the PETITIONER proved his citizenship and his linkage to his projected father, who was listed in the pre-1971 voters’ lists, in accordance with the requirements of the Foreigners Act, 1946

2. Whether the findings of the Foreigners’ Tribunal were perverse or characterized by errors of law warranting interference under Article 226

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

It relied on the precedent in Rashminara Begum v. Union of India (2017) regarding the necessity of comprehensive pleadings in the written statement

For the admissibility of certificates, the court applied the principles from Romila Khatun v. Union of India (2018) and Alekjan Begum v. Union of India (2019), which establish that certificates (from Gaonburah or Panchayat) must be proved in two stages: authenticity of the document and proof of its contents through the examination of the author

Finally, the court applied the standard of Certiorari jurisdiction, emphasizing that writ courts exercise supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction over Tribunal findings of fact

The Court found that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof due to multiple irreconcilable discrepancies. First, the petitioner's own testimony contradicted his witness (DW-2) regarding the existence of siblings and the ownership of landed property

Second, there was a significant gap in the electoral record; although the petitioner claimed his father voted in 1965/1970, the petitioner did not appear in any voters’ list until 1989, despite reaching majority around 1979

Third, the Court rejected the Gaonburah and Panchayat certificates (Exhibits Gha and Unga) as the petitioner failed to examine the authors of these documents, rendering the contents unproven and the certificates inadmissible for establishing linkage

Lastly, discrepancies in the spelling of the father's name across different voters' lists (Nural Islam vs. Nurul Islam vs. Nurislam) remained unexplained in the pleadings

The Court held that the Tribunal’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from legal infirmity. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner of the post-March 25, 1971 stream was upheld.

The Court directed the records to be returned to the Tribunal for consequential action in accordance with law