Unlinked legacy records and unsupported oral testimony do not discharge the proceedee’s Section 9 burden.

The petitioner challenged the opinion dated 28 February 2023 of Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Goalpara, which declared her a foreigner who entered India after 25 March 1971.

Before the Tribunal, she relied on electoral rolls, identity documents, a Gaon Panchayat certificate and oral testimony from four witnesses to establish her Indian citizenship and link to her projected parents.

The Tribunal held that she had not discharged the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

She sought judicial review of that opinion under Article 226.

1. Whether the petitioner’s documentary and oral evidence established her citizenship and discharged the burden imposed by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s opinion disclosed a legal or procedural error warranting interference 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.

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, explains that a person asserting citizenship should ordinarily provide evidence of matters such as date and place of birth and the identity, birthplaces and citizenship of their parents, which are especially within that person’s knowledge.

In certiorari proceedings, the High Court does not reweigh evidence or act as an appellate court; interference is warranted for an apparent error of law or other reviewable defect.

A Panchayat certificate must be supported by reliable proof, including relevant contemporaneous records; its evidentiary value is governed by Rupajan Begum v. Union of India.

Oral testimony without adequate documentary support is insufficient to establish linkage or citizenship.

The Court found that the petitioner’s written statement did not provide her date or place of birth or sufficient particulars of her family, and that the electoral rolls naming her projected parents did not establish her link to them.

The rolls and other records also contained unexplained inconsistencies in village and name—particularly the use of “Joyna Khatun” in some records and “Chaina Khatun” in another.

The 1993 Panchayat certificate had not been produced before the Tribunal; the certificate admitted as Exhibit H was not adequately proved and lacked reliable supporting records.

The oral evidence likewise did not cure the failure to establish the necessary documentary link to the projected father.

Finding no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s factual conclusions in certiorari jurisdiction, the Court held that the petitioner had not discharged her statutory burden.

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim order was vacated, and consequential action was to follow in accordance with law; the Tribunal’s records were directed to be returned.