Court Rejects Petitioner’s Citizenship Claim Due to Insufficient Evidence and Discrepancies in Documents
In a significant ruling on citizenship and nationality, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Aminul Hoque, challenging the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal No.4, Kamrup (M), which declared him a foreigner. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan, delivered the judgment on June 30, 2026, asserting that Hoque failed to establish his citizenship with credible evidence.
The court examined the petitioner's claims and the documentary evidence presented, which included voter lists, land sale deeds, and educational certificates. Despite Hoque's arguments and supporting testimony from his father, the court found discrepancies in names, ages, and village shifts, which created doubts about the consistency and credibility of the documents. Notably, the court emphasized that the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, rests on the petitioner to prove that he is not a foreigner.
Hoque's attempt to rely on electronic records, such as NRC extracts, was also dismissed due to the absence of the necessary certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, now corresponding to Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The court held that such documents are inadmissible without proper certification.
The judgment highlighted that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to act as an appellate body over the Tribunal's decisions. The court found no manifest error in the Tribunal's decision that would warrant intervention. It reiterated that the Tribunal's findings were based on a thorough examination of the evidence and legal standards.
This ruling underscores the stringent standards of proof required in citizenship cases, particularly in Assam, where issues of nationality and identity are critically sensitive. The court’s decision echoes the need for consistent and corroborative documentation to substantiate claims of Indian citizenship.
Bottom line:-
Citizenship determination under Foreigners Act, 1946 - Petitioner failed to establish link with ancestors whose presence in India was traceable prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971 - Documentary evidence, including voter lists, NRC extracts, and school certificates, held inadmissible or insufficient to prove Indian citizenship.
Statutory provision(s): Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 9; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65B; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 63(4); Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Aminul Hoque v. Union of India, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2932211
