Section 9 places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the proceedee.

The petitioner challenged the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat’s opinion dated 26 May 2023 declaring her a foreigner who entered India after 25 March 1971.

Before the Tribunal, she relied on oral testimony, school and voter-list documents, among other materials, to establish her citizenship and her relationship to her projected parents.

The High Court examined the Tribunal’s record and considered whether the opinion disclosed grounds for interference under Article 226.

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

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

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places on the person concerned the burden of proving that they are not a foreigner, notwithstanding the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, explains that facts ordinarily relevant to establishing citizenship—including date and place of birth and the identity and citizenship of parents—are especially within the person’s knowledge.

Under Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023, certiorari is supervisory, not appellate: the High Court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its view, but may intervene for a facial legal error or other reviewable defect.

Documentary evidence must be proved, including its contents and truthfulness, with support from relevant records where required, as stated in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745, and Romila Khatun v. Union of India, 2018 (4) GLT 373.

The Court found the written statement vague and lacking essential particulars, including the petitioner’s date of birth.

The school certificate was not proved by school authorities or supported by contemporaneous records; it also recorded names differing from those of the petitioner and her projected father.

The earlier voter lists did not establish a link between the petitioner and her projected parents, while later lists recorded her with her husband.

The Gaonburah certificate post-dated the Tribunal’s opinion, and the Jamabandi was not before the Tribunal.

The petitioner’s testimony and the additional documents did not cure these deficiencies or establish the required linkage; the additional affidavit and identity documents did not provide proof of citizenship.

The Court therefore found no reviewable 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.