Section 9 places the burden of proving citizenship on the proceedee, requiring cogent, linked evidence.

The petitioner challenged the opinion dated 13 September 2019 of the Foreigners Tribunal-3rd, Morigaon, which declared him a foreigner who entered India after 25 March 1971.

Before the Tribunal, he relied on electoral rolls, land records and oral testimony from himself and his projected younger brother to establish his Indian citizenship.

The High Court examined the Tribunal record and considered whether the Tribunal’s conclusion warranted interference under Article 226.

1. Whether the petitioner discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to prove that he was not a foreigner.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s opinion disclosed an error warranting interference under the High Court’s certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places on the proceedee the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner.

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, explains that a claimant should establish matters such as date and place of birth, parentage, and the parents’ place of birth and citizenship, which are ordinarily within the claimant’s knowledge.

A person relying on a voter list to identify a person as their parent must also substantiate that relationship with legally acceptable supporting material (Aziz Miya v. Union of India, 2023 (4) GLT 246).

In certiorari proceedings, the High Court does not reweigh evidence or act as an appellate court; interference is limited to recognised legal or procedural errors (Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023).

Oral evidence in such proceedings should be supported by documentary or contemporaneous evidence (Bijoy Das v. Union of India, 2018 (3) GLT 118).

The Court found that the petitioner’s written statement omitted material particulars, including his date of birth, his mother’s name and details of his siblings.

The documentary evidence did not reliably establish his link to the person claimed to be his father: the names and parentage recorded across the land documents and electoral rolls varied, and the projected family members listed in different rolls were inconsistent.

The petitioner’s projected brother was not identified in the written statement, and no document established the claimed relationship between them.

The oral testimony was not adequately corroborated by consistent documentary evidence.

Applying the limited scope of certiorari review, the Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s factual conclusion.

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim order vacated, and consequential action was left to proceed in accordance with law.