Case at a glance: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition against a Foreigners Tribunal opinion after finding that the written statement and evidence affidavit in the Tribunal record did not match the copies annexed to the petition, and that the Tribunal-record affidavit had been altered after it was sworn. It held such a tampered affidavit to be no evidence, upheld the opinion on merits, and sent a copy of the order to the Bar Council.
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal opinion of 10 October 2018 declaring him a foreigner who entered Assam after 25 March 1971. The Court compared the written statement and evidence-on-affidavit annexed to the writ petition with the copies in the Tribunal's record.
It found differences: a different birth village, paragraphs missing from the writ copy, 15 exhibits listed in one and 14 in the other, and erasures and overwriting in the Tribunal copy while the writ copy bore a notary's seal.
The Key Question Before the Court
What is the effect of an evidence affidavit altered after it was sworn, and was the Tribunal's opinion sustainable?
Tampering, Burden of Proof and the Documents
The Court held that the Tribunal-record affidavit had been “illegally and unauthorisedly altered” after it was sworn, called the annexures a “forged, fabricated and incorrect copy”, and held: “Such a tampered affidavit is held to be no evidence at all.” It said such conduct would ordinarily justify dismissal at the threshold, but given that citizenship was at stake, it examined the merits.
On merits, the Gaonburah certificate was rightly rejected for unauthorised use of the State Emblem; Aadhaar proves identity, not citizenship; and the names of the grandfather, father and grandmother did not match across voter lists from 1965 to 1997. Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act the burden was on the petitioner, and the Tribunal's opinion was a sound appreciation of the documents (Basiron Nessa; Sirajul Hoque distinguished).
What the Court Actually Held
- The writ petition was dismissed and interim bail granted in 2019 was recalled.
- The consequences of the Tribunal's opinion are to follow.
- The written statement and affidavit from both records are to be kept in safe custody.
- A copy of the order, with a copy of the vakalatnama, is to be sent to the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It treats tampering with sworn affidavits as fatal to their evidentiary value.
- It restates the Section 9 burden in Foreigners Act cases.
- It reaffirms that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Counsel
- Ensure annexed copies exactly match the record; discrepancies can be treated as fabrication.
- Never alter a sworn affidavit; file a fresh one if correction is needed.
For Proceedees
- Link documents consistently across generations; mismatched names weaken the case.
Key Takeaways
- A tampered affidavit is no evidence.
- The burden under Section 9 lies on the proceedee.
- Aadhaar proves identity, not citizenship.
- The order was sent to the Bar Council.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Tribunal-record copy had been altered after it was sworn and did not match the writ copy.
No such finding appears; a copy of the vakalatnama was sent to the Bar Council with the order.
Yes. Because citizenship was at stake, it examined the merits and upheld the Tribunal's opinion.
Conclusion
The judgment is a warning about the integrity of pleadings and affidavits in citizenship proceedings.
Practical takeaway: Any alteration of a sworn affidavit can destroy its evidentiary value and expose counsel to scrutiny.