Unexplained Record Discrepancies and Inadmissible Certificates Fail to Discharge the Burden of Proof under Section 9, Foreigners Act

The petitioner challenged an opinion dated 28.05.2019 by the Foreigners Tribunal 2nd, Kamrup (Rural) at Boko, which declared him an illegal migrant of the post-25.03.1971 stream

The petitioner claimed Indian citizenship by birth, asserting his father, Hemanta Mandal, appeared in the 1970 and 1985 voter lists of village Ahiyabari

He argued that he migrated to village Neuldoba in 1990 and submitted voter lists from 1993–2017, an EPIC, a PAN card, a Gaonburah certificate, and a self-declaratory affidavit to establish linkage

The State contested the claim based on significant discrepancies in ages, parentage names (Nitai vs. Hemanta), and the petitioner's delayed entry into the voter list at age 36 despite being eligible earlier

1. Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to establish his linkage with his projected father and grandfather

2. Whether documents such as a self-declaratory affidavit, EPIC, PAN card, and a Gaonburah certificate bearing the State Emblem constitute valid evidence of citizenship

3. Whether the High Court, in exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, can substitute its view for that of the Tribunal regarding findings of fact

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving citizenship on the person suspected of being a foreigner

Basiron Bibi v. Union of India regarding the holistic examination of voter lists

Jan Nessa v. Union of India, which held that self-filed affidavits do not constitute evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872

Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India, stating that EPIC and PAN cards are not proof of citizenship without supporting evidence

Sajeda Khatun v. Union of India established that Gaonburah certificates using the State Emblem are inadmissible under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das to define the limited scope of Article 226 in correcting jurisdictional errors rather than findings of fact

The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish a "link" because no single voter list recorded the petitioner and his father together

Although the petitioner claimed his father died in 1986, the 1997 voter list cited "Nitai" as his father, and subsequent lists (2005-2017) recorded his father as "Hemanta," creating unexplained discrepancies

The petitioner’s PAN card showed a 1958 birth date, yet he did not explain why he failed to vote until 1993, aged 36

The Court rejected the Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext. L) as inadmissible due to the illegal use of the State Emblem and noted that the Gaonburah (DW-2) lacked personal knowledge of the petitioner’s birth village

The self-declaratory affidavit (Ext. M) was dismissed as it cannot be termed "evidence" unless specifically permitted by law

the court noted that since the reference was transferred from the IMDT to the Foreigners Tribunal following Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, the petitioner could not now challenge the propriety of the initial investigation for the first time in a writ petition

It ruled that the Tribunal’s opinion was not perverse or vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record, and thus, the High Court would not interfere with findings of fact under Article 226

The writ petition was dismissed, the Tribunal's declaration was upheld, and the petitioner's bail was vacated