01Facts
The petitioner challenged the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th, Tezpur, which declared him an illegal migrant/foreigner post-25.03.1971
p. 3The petitioner’s case was that his forefathers migrated from Mymensingh (East Pakistan) in 1964 due to religious persecution, supported by a migration certificate dated 02.09.1964 (Exhibit-II) and an identity card dated 03.09.1964 (Exhibit-III)
p. 3The Tribunal disbelieved these documents, citing a lack of seals/signatures on the migration certificate and the failure of the petitioner to call the issuing authority to prove the identity card's contents
pp. 4-5Consequently, the Tribunal held the petitioner had failed to prove his case through documentary evidence
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the Foreigners' Tribunal erred in law by rejecting documents over thirty years old on the grounds that the issuing authority was not called to prove their contents
p. 6ii.2. Whether the presumption as to the authenticity of ancient documents under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to the 1964 Migration Certificate and Identity Card
p. 603Law Applied
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, which establishes a legal presumption that documents purporting to be thirty years old, produced from proper custody, are duly executed and attested by the persons by whom they purport to be executed
p. 6Sections 5 and 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, regarding the registration and naturalization of persons as citizens of India
p. 7Provisions in the judgment · 2
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 90
Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 5, 6
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the migration certificate (Exhibit-II) and the identity card (Exhibit-III) were issued in 1964, making them more than thirty years old at the time of the proceedings
p. 7Under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume the authenticity of such documents' signatures and execution
p. 6The High Court held that the Tribunal’s rejection of these documents—solely because the issuing authority was not mentioned or called to testify—was legally incorrect as it failed to consider this statutory presumption
p. 7Furthermore, the Court noted that Exhibit-II and Exhibit-III prima facie indicated that the petitioner’s entry into India was not illegal, leaving the subsequent pursuit of citizenship to the migrants under the Citizenship Act
p. 705Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner made out a sufficient case for remand
p. 7The court set aside the Tribunal’s opinion dated 19.11.2018 and remanded the matter to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th, Tezpur, for a fresh hearing
p. 7The Tribunal was directed to re-examine the case, specifically considering the relevancy and authenticity of Exhibit-II and Exhibit-III in light of Section 90 of the Evidence Act
p. 7The petitioner was directed to appear before the Tribunal on or before 25.05.2026
p. 8The writ petition was allowed to the extent of remanding the matter for fresh opinion
p. 8Original Court PDF
Bhupendra @ Bhupendra SarkarvsThe Union Of India And And 5 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
