Oral testimony without documentary support is insufficient to establish linkage or prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act.

The petitioner, Rasida Khatun, challenged the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta 11th, dated 13.09.2018, which declared her a foreigner of the post-25.03.1971 stream

The petitioner claimed she was born in 1988 at Jamadarbari Pathar, Barpeta, to parents Amzad Ali and Pohela Khatun

To establish her lineage, she relied on her grandfather’s 1951 NRC entry, various electoral rolls (1965, 1970, 1989-2014), a school transfer certificate, and Ganburah certificates

Despite her father testifying as DW-2 to confirm their relationship, the Tribunal rejected the documents as uncertified, unproved, or contradictory (noting the grandfather was recorded as deceased in 1951 but appeared in later documents)

1. Whether the documents produced by the petitioner, including uncertified NRC copies and unproved voters' lists, are admissible and sufficient to discharge the burden of proof under the Foreigners Act

2. Whether the oral testimony of a projected father (DW-2) is sufficient to establish a legal linkage under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act in the absence of corroborative documentary evidence

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

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding opinions on relationships, noting it requires "evidence of conduct" rather than mere oral statements

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, emphasizing the impact of illegal migration on national security

Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nirmal Charan Mishra, which defines the strict requirements for admitting "opinion on relationship"

The High Court observed that the petitioner failed to prove her documents in accordance with law; the 1951 NRC entry was uncertified and lacked evidentiary value under the Census Act, while voters' lists were either uncertified or unproved secondary evidence

Addressing the petitioner's reliance on her father’s testimony, the Court held that in Foreigners' Tribunal proceedings—given the "non-obstante" clause in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act—oral testimony alone, without supporting documentary evidence, is "wholly insignificant" and cannot prove citizenship

The Court further clarified that Section 50 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable because the testimony did not establish "opinion expressed by conduct" as required by law, but was merely a bare assertion

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner was upheld as being based on due appreciation of facts and evidence; the Court directed the return of records to the Tribunal for consequential action in accordance with law