Oral Testimony Without Supporting Documentary Evidence Fails to Discharge Burden of Proving Citizenship Linkage

The petitioner, Shajiran @ Saziran Bewa, challenged an opinion dated 26.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-5th, Barpeta, which declared her a foreigner who entered Assam after 25.03.1971

The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship by birth in village Balagaon, citing her father as Nabur Uddin Sheikh

She submitted voter lists from 1966 and 1970 containing her parents' names, and lists from 1985 and 1989 containing her name along with her husband's

She also produced certificates from Gaonburahs (village headmen) and examined herself (DW-1), a Gaonburah (DW-2), and a projected paternal uncle (DW-3) to establish her lineage

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

Basiron Nessa v. Union of India, which establishes that documentary evidence must be proved from records and cannot be substituted by oral testimony

The "Rule of Conduct" under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872 regarding proof of relationship

State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, and the 2007 Rules therein, as interpreted in Sajeda Khatun v. Union of India, which renders documents bearing unauthorized State Emblems (like Gaonburah certificates) inadmissible

Rashminara Begum v. Union of India were cited to emphasize that failure to plead material facts (like the existence of a paternal uncle) leads to an adverse presumption

The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a "link" between herself and her projected father, Nabur Uddin Sheikh. While the 1966 and 1970 voter lists (Ext. A & B) proved the existence of the parents, they did not mention the petitioner

The records mentioning the petitioner (Ext. C & D) only linked her to her husband, not her father

The court rejected the oral testimony of DW-3 (paternal uncle) because his existence and relationship were never mentioned in the petitioner’s initial written statement, creating a discrepancy between pleadings and proof

The Gaonburah certificates (Ext. E & F) were declared "wholly inadmissible" because the Gaonburah utilized the State Emblem of India without authorization, violating statutory rules

The court noted that an Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) is not a valid piece of evidence for citizenship without supporting documents, especially when it is a post-reference document

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner was upheld. The Registry was directed to return the records to the Tribunal for future reference