Failure to Establish Parental Linkage via Cogent Evidence and Contemporaneous Records Discharges the Burden Under Section 9.

The Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta, referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 7th, Barpeta, leading to FT Case No. 295/2016

The petitioner submitted a written statement claiming Indian citizenship by birth, citing her projected parents, "Bandu Kha" and "Ayesha Khatun," and provided Voter Lists from 1966 and 1970

She further submitted Voter Lists from 1989 and 1997, along with a Gaonburah certificate and land documents (Jamabandi) to establish a link to her lineage

On 22.01.2019, the Tribunal declared the petitioner a foreigner post-25.03.1971, finding she failed to discharge the burden of proof

The petitioner subsequently challenged this opinion via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the discrepancy between the stream mentioned in the notice (1966–1971) and the final opinion (post-1971) vitiated the proceeding.

2. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to establish Indian citizenship and her link to her projected parents.

3. Whether the High Court, in its certiorari jurisdiction, can interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which mandates that the onus of proving a person is not a foreigner lies solely on that person, notwithstanding the Evidence Act

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India regarding the requirement to disclose material facts such as date and place of birth

Romila Khatun v. Union of India, which requires the contents of a certificate to be proved by contemporaneous records

Rupajan Begum v. Union of India regarding the authenticity of Gaonburah certificates

Sayam Uddin v. Union of India regarding the validity of Local Verification Officer (LVO) reports

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das regarding the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction

The court found that the petitioner’s written statement was vague and failed to meet the disclosure standards set in Sonowal, specifically lacking her date of birth and full family details

While she provided 1966 and 1970 Voter Lists for her projected father, there was an inexplicable 19-year gap until the next list in 1989, which featured her name with her husband, not her parents; thus, it failed as a link document

The Gaonburah certificate was dismissed because the witness (DW 4) admitted he maintained no public records and had no personal knowledge of her lineage

The court rejected the challenge to the referral process and the stream discrepancy, noting that minor notice errors do not vitiate proceedings if the proceedee had an opportunity to defend

The court emphasized that under Article 226, it cannot re-weigh evidence or act as an appellate body, and since the Tribunal's decision was supported by the record, no interference was warranted

The Court affirmed that the Tribunal’s findings of fact were based on a sound appreciation of evidence and that there was no procedural impropriety in the decision-making process

The writ petition was dismissed, and the stay on the Tribunal's order was vacated, allowing the authorities to proceed in accordance with the law