Voter-list entries alone do not prove familial linkage to pre-1971 residents.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Foreigners’ Tribunal opinion declaring him a foreigner of the post-25 March 1971 stream.

He relied on electoral rolls from 1965, 1970 and 1997, EPICs, a PAN card and a Gaonburah certificate to establish his link to projected family members.

The Tribunal rejected the claimed link, noting inconsistencies in the evidence of the petitioner and his projected father, and declared him a foreigner.

The High Court reviewed the Tribunal record and dismissed the writ petition.

Whether the petitioner established, through the electoral rolls and supporting evidence, a reliable link to his projected father and grandparents sufficient to warrant interference with the Tribunal’s opinion.

Whether the EPIC, PAN card and Gaonburah certificate could independently establish the petitioner’s citizenship or support the claimed family link.

In exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court assessed whether the Tribunal’s opinion warranted interference on the evidence before it.

It relied on Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India for the principle that EPICs and PAN cards, being post-1971 documents issued on the basis of declarations, do not prove citizenship without supporting evidence.

Under Basiron Bibi v. Union of India, evidence in an electoral roll must be considered as a whole; a party cannot rely only on favourable entries or ask the Court to treat an entry as incorrect without proof.

The Court noted that an age discrepancy may be overlooked where the identity of the family is otherwise established, applying Md. Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam.

It also applied Aziz Mia @ Md. Aziz Mia v. Union of India, holding that merely identifying persons in electoral rolls as one’s relatives does not conclusively prove the relationship or discharge the evidentiary burden.

Under Basiron Nessa v. Union of India, documentary evidence must be established from the record; oral testimony or a Gaonburah certificate based on an EPIC is insufficient on its own.

The Court found that the petitioner had not established a consistent family link to the persons named in the electoral rolls.

The projected father’s evidence that his father died in 1970 when he was a small boy conflicted with the electoral-roll entry and his disclosed age, which indicated that he was an adult by 1970.

The petitioner and his projected father also gave inconsistent accounts of the petitioner’s schooling and the names of his siblings.

The Gaonburah lacked knowledge of the petitioner’s family and had issued the certificate without spot verification, relying instead on the petitioner’s EPIC.

In those circumstances, the electoral rolls did not establish the claimed relationship, and the EPIC, PAN card and certificate did not cure the evidentiary deficiencies.

It dismissed the writ petition, directed that the consequences of the Tribunal’s opinion follow, ordered return of the Tribunal record, and revoked the petitioner’s bail.