The proceedee bears the burden of proving Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act.

The petitioner challenged the opinion of Foreigners Tribunal No. 7, Barpeta, which declared him a foreigner of the post-25 March 1971 stream.

He relied on electoral rolls from 1966, 1970, 1977, 1997, 2008 and 2016, his father’s testimony, and a Gaonburah certificate to establish his ancestry and linkage to Indian residents.

The Tribunal rejected his evidence, citing inadequate pleadings, inconsistencies in names and ages across the electoral rolls, and the absence of reliable evidence connecting him to his claimed parents and grandparents.

The petitioner then sought judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner established, through reliable evidence, his linkage to his claimed parents or grandparents and his Indian citizenship before the cut-off date of 25 March 1971.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner was liable to be set aside for wrongly assessing the pleadings and evidence.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places on the person concerned the burden of proving that they are not a foreigner; the burden does not shift.

Relying on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, the Court stated that a proceedee must provide relevant particulars—including date and place of birth, parents’ names, and their place of birth and citizenship—to support a citizenship claim.

The Court also relied on Romila Khatun v. Union of India, 2018 (4) GLT 373, for the principle that both a document and the truth of its contents must be proved through supporting records; and on Nur Begum v. Union of India, 2020 (3) GLT 347, for the principle that oral testimony without documentary support is insufficient to establish linkage or citizenship.

An EPIC card does not, by itself, prove citizenship.

The Court found that the petitioner’s electoral-roll evidence did not reliably establish a continuous link to his claimed family: the rolls related to different villages and contained material discrepancies in names and ages, while the petitioner did not adequately explain the gaps—particularly between 1977 and 1997—or identify other persons listed in the 1966 roll.

His father’s oral evidence did not cure those deficiencies, and the Gaonburah certificate lacked supporting contemporaneous public records; the EPIC likewise did not establish citizenship.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had omitted material particulars, including his date and place of birth and the names of his mother and siblings, and held that he had not discharged the burden under Section 9.

It dismissed the writ petition, directed that the consequences of the Tribunal’s opinion follow, cancelled the bail order dated 13 May 2020, and made no order as to costs.