Gauhati HC Upholds Foreigner Tag for Assam Man Despite 15 Citizenship Documents

The Gauhati High Court has reportedly backed a Foreigners Tribunal's decision declaring an Assam resident a foreigner, ruling that he failed to prove his Indian citizenship despite submitting 15 documents in support of his claim. 

A Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on June 30, observing that none of the documents successfully linked the petitioner to his claimed ancestry, as per reports.

The Bench noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which requires a person to establish that they are an Indian citizen and not a foreigner.

The case pertained to a petition filed by Aminul Hoque, challenging the February 28, 2019, order of the Foreigners Tribunal in Guwahati, which had declared him a foreigner, as per reports. 

To support his claim, the petitioner reportedly submitted 15 documents before the Foreigners Tribunal, including:

• Computerised copies of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) carrying the names of his father and grandparents.
• Certified copies of electoral rolls from 1996 to 2017 containing the names of his family members.
• A 1973 land purchase deed executed by his grandfather.
• A 2017 school certificate issued by Hashdoba Anchalik High School.
• His Permanent Account Number (PAN) card.
• His Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC).

According to his written statement, the petitioner was born in 1988 and works as a daily-wage labourer while residing in rented accommodation in Borbori, Guwahati.

He also claimed that repeated river erosion forced his family to move from Charai Khasara to Dhobakura, then to Ghugudoba, and finally to Hashdoba, where he studied in Class 5 at Hashdoba Anchalik High School in 1999.

Apart from documentary evidence, both the petitioner and his father appeared before the tribunal and provided oral testimony in support of his citizenship claim.

 However, the High Court found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the petitioner's linkage to his claimed Indian ancestry and upheld the Foreigners Tribunal's order.

The court also rejected several other documents and highlighted multiple discrepancies, as per reports:

• 2017 school certificate: Rejected because the headmaster who issued it was not produced as a witness, and the school admission register was not presented to verify the entries.

• 1973 land purchase deed: Found insufficient as it failed to establish a clear family lineage. The court noted that no land revenue records were produced to explain how the property devolved upon the legal heirs or whether the petitioner's father had inherited or relinquished any share.

• PAN card and Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC): Rejected as the court reiterated that these documents are not proof of Indian citizenship.

• Electoral rolls: The court found multiple discrepancies, including:
  • Inconsistent ages of family members across different voter lists.
  • Names of individuals whose relationship with the petitioner was not established.
  • Family members appearing in three different villages — Dhobakura, Ghugudoba and Hashdoba — without credible evidence establishing a continuous lineage.

Concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal infirmity in the Tribunal's findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order declaring him a foreigner. 

.