The Gauhati High Court reaffirms that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of factual findings by the Foreigners’ Tribunal and upholds the settled principle that the onus to prove citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, lies entirely on the person proceeded against. The Court affirms existing precedent, clarifies evidentiary requirements in Tribunal proceedings, and provides binding guidance for future jurisdictional challenges in Assam and similarly situated states.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/4394/2025 of HAIDAR ALI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS |
| CNR | GAHC010163692025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Rajesh Mazumdar |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and Foreigners’ Tribunals within the Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled law regarding burden of proof in Foreigners Act cases and high threshold for writ interference with Tribunal findings |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (Article 226), Immigration/Nationality (Foreigners Act, 1946), Procedural law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited in foreigner proceedings to examining only the decision-making process and not the reappreciation or substitution of factual findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, lies squarely and unshiftingly on the person proceeded against to establish citizenship with cogent and admissible evidence. The Tribunal’s factual assessment is not susceptible to review by the writ court unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional infirmity. Pleadings and documentary proof—including strict linkage evidence and credibility—are scrutinized rigorously, and oral testimony unsupported by records carries little or no weight. The case further clarifies that NRC documents may not by themselves prove citizenship. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (F.T. Case No. 11044/2011). The original reference was made by the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri. The petitioner, in response, produced a written statement with several documents and examined himself and one person as witnesses. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had failed to discharge the legal burden to establish Indian citizenship, leading to the finding against him. Petitioner challenged Tribunal’s decision in writ proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, Foreigners’ Tribunals, and authorities within the Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with Foreigners Act, 1946; foreigner determination proceedings |
| Follows | Rashminara Begum v. UOI (2017), Nur Begum v. UOI (2020), Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration (1963), Ghaus Mohammad v. UOI (1961), Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023, SC) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the writ court’s jurisdiction under Article 226, in the context of Foreigners Act proceedings, is strictly confined to reviewing the decision-making process; not the facts or evidence.
- Affirms that the burden of proof under Section 9, Foreigners Act, 1946 is non-delegable, lies entirely on the proceedee, and is not mitigated even by the Evidence Act, 1872.
- Clarifies that evidence of linkage (such as parentage) must be supported by properly proved documentary evidence as well as precise and consistent pleadings.
- Establishes that NRC documentation alone does not constitute valid proof of citizenship in Tribunal proceedings.
- Restates the legal position that oral testimony on linkage, unsupported by documentary evidence, carries minimal or no evidentiary value.
- Highlights that inconsistencies (e.g., in age, names, relationship) across documents can fatally undermine the case for citizenship.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the legal standards and relevant precedents regarding the burden of proof in Foreigners Act cases, highlighting Section 9 of the Act which expressly places the onus on the alleged foreigner, to the exclusion of Evidence Act presumptions.
- The Court relied on Rashminara Begum and Nur Begum (Gauhati High Court), emphasizing that pleadings, especially the written statement, must contain all material facts and that parties cannot traverse beyond pleadings.
- The value of documentary evidence was scrutinized, with the Court noting that out of multiple documents produced, only a few were actually proved; many had inconsistencies regarding age and names.
- Key authorities such as Fateh Mohd. and Ghaus Mohammad (Supreme Court, regarding the Foreigners Act) were cited to reassert that the burden of proof on the proceedee is absolute and overriding.
- In line with Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, the Court held that certiorari jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciation of facts or substitution of the Tribunal’s factual findings.
- Oral evidence unproven by corroborating documents, vague or inconsistent linkage, or attempts to fill gaps by reference to documents not proved in evidence, were held insufficient.
- Dismissed the writ, holding that the Tribunal’s orders were in accordance with law and the requirements of proof, and that the High Court could not act as an appellate forum on facts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that sufficient documentary and oral evidence had been produced to prove citizenship.
- Challenged the Tribunal’s appreciation of evidence, arguing improper exclusion or undervaluation of materials submitted.
- Relied on various documents: Voter Lists, Certificates by Gaonburah, NRC data, Voter ID, Aadhaar, PAN card.
Respondents
- Argued that the proceedee failed to properly prove key documents or linkage to claimed Indian parentage.
- Pointed out inconsistencies and lack of material particulars (such as absence of parent’s names in written statement, mismatch of ages).
- Stressed that under Section 9, the entire burden of proof is on the petitioner/proceedee, who failed to discharge it as per law.
- Cited relevant case law on burden of proof, linkage, and the limits of evidence.
Factual Background
The petitioner was referred by the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, leading to F.T. Case No. 11044/2011, where he was declared a foreigner having entered India after 25.03.1971. He filed a written statement and produced a series of documents and witnesses, including a person claimed as his mother, to establish citizenship. The Tribunal held the evidence insufficient, specifically noting missing linkage, inconsistent documentation, and failure to prove certain exhibits. The petitioner pursued relief by filing a writ petition under Article 226, challenging the Tribunal’s findings.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 9, Foreigners Act, 1946: Explicitly shifts the burden of proof to the person facing proceedings—regardless of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court extracted the full provision and noted it overrides usual rules of evidence.
- Article 226, Constitution of India: Writ jurisdiction, especially for certiorari, is intended for jurisdictional or manifest legal errors, not for factual reconsideration, as reaffirmed with Supreme Court precedent.
- The Court referenced statutory interpretation limiting the High Court’s intervention to process and legality, not substitution of factual determination on citizenship.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strongly affirms settled law regarding both the writ court’s jurisdiction and the burden of proof for citizenship determination under the Foreigners Act. No prior precedent was overturned.