Under Section 9, the proceedee bears the burden of proving Indian citizenship, which never shifts.

A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon, against the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, leading to F.T. (Nal) Case No. 502/2010 before Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Nalbari.

The petitioner filed a written statement, adduced evidence through three witnesses, and relied on documents including voter lists, school certificates, a Gaonburah certificate, a Permanent Resident Certificate, NRC-related documents, and tax-payment records.

By opinion dated 29 May 2018, the Tribunal declared him a foreigner who had entered India after 25 March 1971, holding that he had failed to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act.

The petitioner challenged that opinion under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, of proving that he was not a foreigner and was an Indian citizen.

2. Whether the materials relied upon by the petitioner—particularly the school certificates, voter lists, Gaonburah certificate, and municipal certificate—were legally admissible, reliable, and sufficient to establish his citizenship and pre-25 March 1971 Indian ancestry or residence.

3. Whether the Foreigners Tribunal’s opinion suffered from an error of law, procedural illegality, or perversity warranting interference by the High Court in certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden upon the person concerned to prove that he is not a foreigner, notwithstanding the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court relied on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, which requires a person claiming citizenship to disclose and establish material particulars such as date and place of birth, the identity and citizenship of parents, and, where relevant, grandparental details.

The Court also applied the principles in Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1035, concerning the statutory burden under Section 9.

In certiorari proceedings, the High Court does not reappraise or reweigh evidence as an appellate court; interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, patent error of law, procedural illegality, reliance on legally impermissible evidence, or findings unsupported by evidence, as reflected in Nur Begum v. Union of India, 2020 (3) GLT 347, and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023.

A certificate must also be proved both as to its authenticity and the authenticity of its contents, following Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579.

The Court held that the petitioner’s written statement was materially deficient because it did not disclose his date of birth, place of birth, mother’s name, siblings’ names, or other particulars necessary to establish his citizenship claim.

The school certificate dated 25 August 1986 was not proved by the issuing authority.

The other certificate, dated 8 September 1986, was found unreliable because it was issued on plain paper, contained inconsistent school names and stamps, was issued approximately sixteen years after the alleged admission, lacked the Deputy Inspector of Schools’ countersignature, conflicted with the school register and the petitioner’s own testimony, and contained discrepancies in his and his father’s names.

The 1955 voter-list document was only a photocopy and also showed a discrepancy in the projected father’s name.

The later voter lists did not adequately establish the petitioner’s birth or citizenship and contained inconsistencies regarding his name, his father’s name, and age.

The Gaonburah certificate established, at most, local residence and was not conclusive proof of citizenship.

The alleged 2017 municipal certificate was not the document actually exhibited before the Tribunal; the exhibited document related to 1975.

Since the evidence was unreliable and the pleadings and testimony were inconsistent, the petitioner failed to discharge the statutory burden.

The Tribunal’s conclusion was therefore supported by the record and disclosed no error warranting certiorari interference.

The writ petition was dismissed, the earlier interim order was vacated, and all consequential actions were directed to proceed in accordance with law.

The Tribunal records were ordered to be returned with a copy of the judgment.