GUWAHATI: A man in Assam moved the Gauhati High Court challenging a foreigners' tribunal order declaring him a "foreigner", producing 15 documents to support his claim of Indian citizenship. However, the High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, holding that he had failed to legally establish his citizenship.
The Foreigners' Tribunal No. 4, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, had on February 28, 2019, declared Aminul Hoque, a daily wage labourer, to be a foreigner. He subsequently challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court.
To support his claim, Hoque produced 15 documents, including his PAN card, voter lists, voter identity cards, a computer-generated copy of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) containing the names of his father and grandparents, and the original sale deed of a plot of land purchased in 1973.
A division bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan, however, dismissed the petition, holding that the documents relied upon were either inadmissible in evidence or insufficient to prove his citizenship.
"Though the petitioner had exhibited 15 documents as exhibits, the same does not appear to help him establish that he has been able to discharge his burden as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen," the court said in its June 30 judgment.
The petitioner's father had identified him as his son before the tribunal. However, the High Court held that a written statement and oral testimony alone are insufficient in proceedings under the Foreigners Act.
"The fact-in-issue would have to be proved by the proceedee by adducing documentary evidence which is admissible and relevant," the court observed.
Referring to an earlier judgment, the bench noted that an NRC extract cannot be relied upon to prove domicile unless it satisfies the requirements of law. It found that the 1951 NRC extract produced by the petitioner was merely a computer-generated printout and lacked the certificate mandated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The court also noted that the tribunal had rejected the 1973 land sale deed produced in the name of the petitioner's projected grandfather, as there was no explanation regarding the present status of the property or why it had not devolved upon the grandfather's legal heirs.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any patent error in the tribunal's appreciation of the evidence, the High Court found no reason to interfere with its opinion.
"...the court finds no material to hold that the opinion assailed in this writ petition is bad on facts or in law. The petitioner could not show that the said opinion was perverse on any count whatsoever. Therefore, this challenge fails and consequently, this writ petition is dismissed," the judgment said.
