The Gauhati High Court has clarified that the burden to establish citizenship lies entirely on the proceedee, and the family voter lists, oral testimony and Panchayat certificates without credible documentary linkage are insufficient. The Court reiterated that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the person facing proceedings must independently prove Indian citizenship through reliable and admissible evidence.
The Court found that the petitioner had failed to provide several material particulars, including basic personal and family details, which were crucial facts lying within her own knowledge. Although the petitioner produced electoral rolls containing the names of her projected ancestors, the Court held that such documents do not establish citizenship unless there is clear documentary evidence linking the petitioner to those legacy persons.
The Court noted significant inconsistencies in the testimony of the petitioner and her witnesses and emphasised that oral statements must be corroborated by credible records, especially in citizenship proceedings. Lastly, the Court reaffirmed that such certificates are not proof of citizenship by themselves and can only serve as supporting linkage documents when properly verified and supported by other reliable evidence.
Briefly, the dispute arose from a reference made by the Border Police, Barpeta, doubting the citizenship status of the petitioner, Sona Bhanu. The matter was initially registered under the IM(D)T regime and later transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal after the Supreme Court struck down the IM(D)T Act. The Foreigners Tribunal declared the petitioner to be an illegal migrant who entered India after March 25, 1971.
The petitioner claimed that she was an Indian citizen by birth and relied upon electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970 containing the name of her projected grandfather, Afser Kha, and later voter lists containing the name of her projected father, Sultan Khan. She also produced a Gaon Panchayat certificate and a Gaonburah certificate to establish linkage with her projected family lineage. Her father, the village headman and the Panchayat Secretary were examined as witnesses in support of her claim.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Pranjal Das observed that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden to prove Indian citizenship rests entirely upon the proceedee. The Court reiterated that the burden never shifts to the State, and citizenship must be proved through cogent, reliable and admissible evidence.
The Court found the petitioner’s written statement to be vague and materially deficient. Important particulars such as her date of birth, parents’ details, siblings’ details and other foundational facts relating to citizenship were not disclosed. The Court held that such omissions were fatal because these facts are especially within the personal knowledge of the proceedee.
The Court further noted that none of the voter lists relied upon contained the petitioner’s own name. While the names of the projected grandfather, parents and a sibling appeared in some electoral rolls, there was no convincing documentary evidence connecting the petitioner to those persons. The Court also noticed an unexplained gap between the voter lists of 1970 and 1985, which was crucial in determining citizenship status.
The Court found inconsistencies in the oral evidence. The petitioner and her father were unable to provide basic details such as her exact date and year of birth. There were contradictions regarding the death of the projected grandfather. The Court regarded these discrepancies as weakening the credibility of the evidence adduced by the petitioner.
The Court emphasised that oral testimony by itself cannot prove citizenship and must be supported by trustworthy documentary records. Since there was no common document effectively linking the petitioner with her projected father and grandfather, the oral evidence was held insufficient.
Regarding the Gaonburah certificate and Gaon Panchayat certificate, the Court observed that the authors themselves admitted they had limited personal knowledge of the petitioner and had not independently verified the information. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rupjan Begum, the Court reiterated that a Gaon Panchayat certificate is not proof of citizenship and can at best serve as a supporting linkage document after proper verification.
