Oral testimony and inadmissible local certificates fail to establish citizenship linkage without cogent documentary evidence.

The petitioner, Tara Bhanu, was proceeded against under the Foreigners Act, 1946, following a reference from the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, based on a report from the Electoral Registration Officer marking her as a ‘D’ (Doubtful) voter.

The petitioner claimed to be an Indian citizen by birth, asserting she was the daughter of Taju Sheikh, whose name allegedly appeared in the 1951 NRC and voter lists of 1966, 1970, and 1997.

She submitted several documents, including a Gaon Panchayat Secretary certificate and oral testimony from a projected brother (DW-3) and a Gaonburah (DW-2).

The Foreigners Tribunal-5th, Barpeta, via opinion dated 12.06.2019, declared her a foreigner for failing to establish a linkage to her projected parents and for discrepancies in her family tree.

The petitioner challenged this opinion via a writ petition under Article 226.

1. Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof to establish her Indian citizenship and linkage to her projected father under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

2. Whether the oral testimonies and certificates issued by the Gaonburah and Panchayat Secretary constitute admissible and sufficient proof of citizenship in the absence of primary documentary evidence.

3. Whether the reference made by the Electoral Registration Officer was invalid due to improper investigation.

The court applied Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which mandates that the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner lies solely upon the proceedee.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which established that citizenship-related facts are within the personal knowledge of the individual (Section 106, Evidence Act) and that illegal migration constitutes "external aggression".

Following Sajeda Khatun v. Union of India (2018), the court held that certificates containing the State Emblem used by unauthorized officials (like Gaonburahs) are inadmissible.

Based on Nur Begum v. Union of India (2020), the court ruled that oral testimony without documentary support is insignificant in proving citizenship.

The court found that the petitioner failed to prove her linkage to Taju Sheikh through cogent evidence. The 1966 voter list (Ext. A) showed "Taju Miya" with wife "Akaton Nessa," whereas the 1970 list (Ext. B) showed "Taju Sheikh" with wife "Sumari Sheikh," and the petitioner failed to explain this discrepancy or the fate of the first wife.

The court noted that the petitioner’s oral testimony was inconsistent; she claimed to have only one brother, whereas voter records indicated another brother (Samad Ali) existed, leading to an adverse presumption.

The Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext. F) was rejected due to the unauthorized use of the State Emblem and for concealing the ‘D’ voter remark in the translated version provided to the Court.

The Panchayat Secretary’s certificate (Ext. E) was deemed a mere supporting document for NRC purposes and carried a disclaimer that it did not prove citizenship.

The court emphasized that the ERO’s marking of a ‘D’ voter is a quasi-judicial exercise, and the Superintendent of Police is not required to conduct a fresh enquiry before making a reference.

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's opinion that the petitioner is a foreigner who entered Assam after 25.03.1971.

The court specifically deprecated the conduct of the petitioner's counsel for providing misleading "true" translations that withheld critical disclaimer text and remarks from exhibits.

No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the Tribunal's decision and the Tribunal’s records were ordered to be returned for further legal consequences.