Assam man fails to prove citizenship despite submitting 15 documents

The Gauhati High Court has upheld a Foreigners Tribunal's decision declaring an Assam resident a foreigner, ruling that despite submitting 15 documents and oral testimony, he failed to legally establish his Indian citizenship.

A Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan dismissed the petition filed by the daily wage labourer, observing that the documents produced were either inadmissible under law or insufficient to prove his citizenship. The court held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The petitioner, who was born in 1988 and currently lives in rented accommodation near Guwahati, had submitted a range of documents, including copies of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) carrying the names of his father and grandparents, voter lists from different years, a land deed executed by his grandfather in 1973, a school certificate, PAN card and Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC). His father also testified before the tribunal to establish their family lineage.

However, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the documents failed to establish a legally admissible link between the petitioner and his claimed ancestors.

A major setback to the petitioner's case was the rejection of the 1951 NRC extract. The court observed that the NRC record submitted was only a computer-generated copy without the mandatory certification required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). It further held that Census records, including the 1951 NRC, are inadmissible as evidence under Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948.

The petitioner's 2017 school certificate was also rejected because neither the headmaster who issued it nor the school's admission register was produced before the court to verify its authenticity.

The court further found inconsistencies in the voter lists submitted by the petitioner, while ruling that oral testimony alone cannot establish citizenship without corroborating documentary evidence. During cross-examination, the petitioner's father was also found to be different from the individual whose name appeared in one of the voter lists relied upon by the petitioner.

The High Court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the Foreigners Tribunal's findings and observed that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any error in the appreciation of evidence. It dismissed the writ petition, thereby affirming the Tribunal's decision declaring him a foreigner.