Gauhati High Court

Oral testimony and unauthenticated certificates are insufficient to establish linkage for citizenship under the Foreigners Act.

Alesha Khatun @ Alesha Begum vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors.

Gauhati High CourtJUDGMENT: May 27, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal No. 5, Darrang, which declared her a foreign national of the post-25.03.1971 stream

Source reference: p. 3

The case originated from a 2006 police enquiry raising suspicions about her nationality

Source reference: p. 3

To prove Indian citizenship, the petitioner claimed linkage to her father, Nur Islam (voters list 1993), and grandfather, Akash Ali (voters list 1966)

Source reference: p. 3, 4

She submitted school certificates (Exhibit 3) and Gaon Panchayat certificates (Exhibits 7 & 8) to establish this relationship

Source reference: p. 6

The Tribunal rejected these documents because the authors were not produced to prove the contents, and oral testimonies were deemed insufficient

Source reference: p. 3, 6
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish her linkage with an Indian ancestor prior to 25.03.1971 under the Foreigners Act, 1946

Source reference: p. 5

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by discarding certified copies of the electoral rolls and other certificates on the grounds of lack of proof of contents

Source reference: p. 3, 6
03

Law Applied

The court applied Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving citizenship on the proceedee

Source reference: p. 5

Under Section 74, 76, and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court addressed the presumption of genuineness for certified copies of public documents

Source reference: p. 3

the court primarily relied on the principle that mere production of documents is not proof of their contents without testimony from authors, as established in L.I.C. v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen

Source reference: p. 3

relying on Bijoy Das v. Union of India, the court emphasized that oral testimony alone is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof in citizenship cases without reliable documentary linkage

Source reference: p. 5
04

Reasoning

The High Court examined whether the petitioner established a "documentary link" to her projected ancestors. While Exhibit 1 (1966 voters list) showed Akash Ali as an Indian citizen, the petitioner failed to prove Nur Islam was her father or that Nur Islam was the son of Akash Ali

Source reference: p. 5, 6

The 1993 voters list showed Nur Islam appearing for the first time at age 30, which the court found did not automatically establish a link

Source reference: p. 6

The school and Gaon Panchayat certificates (Exhibits 3, 7, and 8) were rightly discarded by the Tribunal because their authors did not depose to verify the contents

Source reference: p. 6

The court held that without these certificates, the petitioner's case rested solely on oral evidence (DW-1 and DW-2), which is legally insufficient to prove citizenship lineage

Source reference: p. 6, 7
05

Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof.

The High Court upheld the Foreigners' Tribunal's decision, finding no perversity or misreading of evidence. The writ petition was dismissed, the interim protection was vacated, and the petitioner was confirmed to be a foreign national

Source reference: p. 7
Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF

Alesha Khatun @ Alesha BegumvsThe Union Of India And 5 Ors.

Gauhati High Court · May 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment