Oral Testimony Without Corroborating Contemporaneous Documentary Evidence Cannot Establish Citizenship Under Foreigners Act Section 9.

The petitioner was the subject of a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon, questioning her citizenship (F.T. Case No. 1184/2011)

Before the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Nagaon, the petitioner filed a written statement claiming her father, Radha Charan Paul, migrated from East Pakistan and registered in India in 1960

She produced ten documents, including a 1960 Registration Certificate, 1971 Voter List (naming her projected brother), and a Gaonburah certificate

the petitioner did not depose herself, relying on her projected brother (DW-2) and a Gaonburah (DW-1)

The Tribunal declared her a foreigner post-25.03.1971, finding she failed to discharge her burden of proof

The petitioner challenged this opinion via a Writ Petition under Article 226

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, notwithstanding the Evidence Act

This was supported by the "Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India" (2005) principle, requiring disclosure of specific personal facts like date/place of birth and parental details

Per "Nur Begum v. Union of India" (2020), oral testimony without corroborating documentary evidence of a contemporaneous period is insufficient to prove citizenship

Regarding local certificates, "Khudeja Khatoon v. Union of India" (2018) and "State of Assam v. Ohab Ali" (2018) establish that Gaonburah certificates lack probative value if not backed by contemporaneous records or if they use the National Emblem without authorization

The Court found the petitioner’s written statement "vague" and lacking essential details required by the Sonowal precedent, such as her exact date of birth or comprehensive family details

While the 1960 Registration Certificate of the father and the 1971 Voter List of the brother were noted, the Court observed a total "lack of linkage" between those individuals and the petitioner

The oral testimony of the projected brother (DW-2) could not substitute for documentary linkage

The Gaonburah certificate (Ext-3) was rejected because the issuer (DW-1) admitted he became Gaonburah only in 2013 (long after the facts certified), lacked contemporaneous records to support the contents, and unauthorizedly used the National Emblem

Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the "summary" but rigorous requirements of Section 9

The Writ Petition was dismissed. However, regarding the alternative plea, the Court held that while the petitioner did not meet the standards for existing citizenship, she remains at liberty to apply for benefit under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, provided she can establish she belongs to the specific class of persons entitled to relief under that Act. The Tribunal's records were ordered to be returned for further legal action