AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Pathak, J)
Heard Mr. SD Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Sarma, learned CGC, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. A I
Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Standing Counsel,
Foreigners Tribunal & Border appearing for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 and Ms. U. Das, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, Assam appearing for
respondent No.4.
Petitioner No. 2 herein is the wife of petitioner No.1 and both petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of petitioner Nos. 3 to 6.
Brief facts of the case is that the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon referred the case against the petitioners to the Illegal Migrants
(Determination) by Tribunal, Nagaon being Reference IM(D)T Case No. 1018/2002 with the allegations that the petitioners, resident of Village-
Saru Matiparbat under Jagiroad (Nellie) Police Station in the District of Morigaon (Assam), had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971
for easy livelihood from Bangladesh and they could not produce any documents in support of being Indian citizen at the time of verification and
investigation. The said reference was later transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon, Assam wherein it was registered as Case No.
F.T.(C) 459/2010.
The petitioners on receipt of notice in said F.T.(C) 459/2010 entered their appearance before the Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon as
opposite parties, contested the case by filing their written statement on 16.11.2016 and exhibited â€" (i) Exhibit-A â€" Citizenship Certificate, (ii)
Exhibit-B â€" Registered Sale Deed, (iii) Exhibit-C â€" 1997 Voter List, (iv) ExhibitD â€" 2016 Voter List, (v) 1997 Exhibit-E â€" Land Document,
(vi) Exhibits -F & G â€" Birth Certificates of petitioners No. 3 to 6, (vii) Exhibit-H â€" Certificate of Village Headman (Gaonburha) and (vii)
Exhibit-I â€" Copy of a Judgment. The petitioner No.1 also examined himself as DW1.
After hearing the petitioners, the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon, Assam by the impugned judgment and order dated
08.03.2018 passed in Case No. F.T.(C) 459/2010 (State of Assam Vs. Shri Biswanath Mandal and others) came to a finding that the petitioners
herein i.e. the opposite parties in said FT Case No.459/2010 are illegal migrants and declared them as foreigners under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 and further, held that as the said petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein have been declared as Foreigners, their all other blood related immediate
relatives are deemed to be foreigners and accordingly, directed the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon to delete the names of the petitioners
from the voters list forthwith and further directed the authorities to delete and cancel the names of the other family members of the petitioners from
any government beneficial scheme, family Ration Card, Voter ID, Driving Licenses etc. and to confiscate all such documents under the custody of the
petitioners as well as their other family members forthwith.
By this writ petition filed on 18.06.2018, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction and to set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon, in said Case No. F.T.(C) 459/2010 (State of
Assam Vs. Shri Biswanath Mandal and others).
The contentions of the petitioners are that in said FT(C) 459/2010, the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon, did not appreciate
the evidence and exhibits in proper perspective and without applying his judicious mind declared them to be foreigners. It is also contended by the
petitioners that the said Tribunal did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner No.2 to adduce evidence.
It is also stated by the petitioners that before the said Tribunal at Morigaon they had filed an application under Order 3A of Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964 for review of the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 passed in said FT(C) 459/2010 being Misc. Case (Review) No. 16/2018, which was also
rejected by the learned Tribunal on 21.05.2018.
The Issue involved in this writ petition is whether the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon, in said Case No. F.T.(C) 459/2010Â passed
the impugned judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 in proper perspective or not while declaring the petitioners to be foreigners under Section 2(a) of
the Foreigners Act, 1946.
In this writ petition it is contended by the petitioner No.1 that the surname of his father was originally ‘Sarkar’ and later it was changed to
‘Mandal’ and after adopting the surname of ‘Mandal’, his father and his two uncles were known as Nibaran Mandal, Kerali Mandal and
Sricharan Mandal and that their names were recorded in the Electoral Roll of 1970 with their surnames recorded as ‘Mandal’.
It is also stated by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 married the petitioner No.2, daughter of Subal Chandra Paul and from their marriage; they
have a daughter, petitioner No.3 and three sons, the petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 herein, where the petitioners No. 5 & 6 are twin brothers. It is also stated
by the petitioners that name of the father of the petitioner No. 2 was recorded in the Electoral Roll for the year 1966 in respect of No. 83, Bokani
(SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam and his name is also traceable to the legacy data generated by the office of the “State
Coordinator of National Registration (NRC), Assam, Voter Listâ€. It is further contended by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that their names were
recorded in the Electoral Roll of 1997 pertaining to LAC No. 79, Jagiroad (SC) whereas the names of all the petitioners have been recorded in the
Electoral Roll of 2016 for the same constituency.
It is seen that in the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 passed in said FT(C) 459/2010 the learned Tribunal recorded that the petitioner No.1 as
DW1 deposed that the name of his father as Niabaran @ Nibaram Mandal and the name of his grandfather as Kristo Mandal and though the said
petitioner exhibited Exhibit-A, a Certificate of Registration, in the name his grandfather Kristo Mandal issued by the Sub Deputy Register, Dhing on
14.12.1956, but from the physical appearance/characteristic of the same the Tribunal found that the same is not a Government document but the same
is a self made document by the holder itself and that the petitioner No.1 did not prove the same to consider it to be valid as laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LIC -Vs- Ram Pal Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491.
From the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 of the learned Tribunal it is seen that the said Tribunal while considering the land document, Exhibit-B
exhibited by the petitioner No.1 found that it contains the name of Nibaran Ch. Sarkar, whereas the said petitioner named his father as Niabaran @
Nibaram Mandal. The said Tribunal also considered the fact that the petitioner No.1 has sworn an affidavit in that regard but expressed his view that
as provided under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, an Affidavit has no evidentiary value in the absence of other corroborating documents/evidence and
therefore, the said Tribunal did not accept the said land document placed by the petitioner No.1.
The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 further observed that despite the fact that the petitioner No.1 stated that his grandfather
Kristo Mandal had obtained a Certificate of Registration of 1956, but the said petitioner did not place any other document to relate himself with his
grandfather Kristo Mandal or with his father Niabaran @ Nibaram Mandal. For such reason the said Tribunal also did not give any weightage to
the order passed by his predecessor Member in Case No. F.T.(C) 847/2006, Exhibit-I, placed by the petitioner No.1, by which one Smt. Gita Sarkar,
alleged daughter of his uncle namely Kerali Mandal, had been declared as an Indian Citizen on the basis of said Certificate of Registration of 1956 in
the name of Kristo Mandal, alleged grandfather of the petitioner No.1.
The learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 specified that the petitioner No.2, wife of petitioner No.1 did not appear to adduce
her evidence in spite of granting her more than 6 months time. In the said impugned order, the said Tribunal observed that except submitting a
photocopy of the voter list of her purported father, namely, Subal Ch. Paul, she did not prove the same adducing either oral evidence or by producing
original documentary evidence, for which the Tribunal did not consider the said document and accordingly, proceeded against her to be a foreigner.
In the case of LIC -Vs- Ram Pal Singh Bisen, ireported in (2010) 4 SCC 491, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that â€" Mere admission
of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof,
which is required to be done in accordance with law. It is the duty of the party to have proved the documents, in accordance with the provisions of the
Evidence Act. Under the law of evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary
evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and
marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court.
Section 8 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 relates to ‘Determination of Nationality’ and Section 9 of the said 1946 Act relates to ‘Burden of
Proof’, which reads as follows:-
Burden of proof. â€" If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given
thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is
not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(1 of 1872), lie upon such person.
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam and Others -Vs- Muslim Mondal and Others, reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 have
held that â€
The provisions of Section 9 of the 1946 Act is, therefore, in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which provides
that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In a proceeding before the Tribunal
under the provisions of the 1946 Act, the provisions of Section 101 of the Evidence Act is not at all applicable, an exception having been carved out by
Section 9 of the said Act. Even in a proceeding where the provisions of Sections 101 and 106 of the Evidence Act are applicable, the burden of
proving any fact which is especially within the knowledge of any person, is upon such person, by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which is
an exception to Section 101 i.e. the general rule of the burden of proof in such proceeding.
In a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with 1964 Order the issue is whether the proceedee is a foreigner. It being a fact especially
within the knowledge of the proceedee, the burden of proving that he is a citizen is, therefore, upon him, because of Section 9 of the 1946 Act and it is,
therefore, his obligation to provide enough evidence to establish that he is not a foreigner.
In a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with 1964 Order the issue is whether the proceedee is a foreigner. It being a fact especially
within the knowledge of the proceedee, the burden of proving that he is a citizen is, therefore, upon him, because of Section 9 of the 1946 Act and it is,
therefore, his obligation to provide enough evidence to establish that he is not a foreigner. In an exparte proceeding before the Tribunal constituted
under the provisions of 1964 Order the said position would not be changed as the burden of proving that the proceedee is not a foreigner continues to
be upon the proceedee, which cannot shift and when the proceedee does not adduce any evidence to discharge such burden, the Tribunal has no
alternative but to opine the proceedee as a foreigner, having regard to the main grounds on which the reference has been initiated and the notice
having been issued to the proceedee. Unlike in a suit in the Civil Court, where the Court may require the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove his case
even in an ex-parte proceeding, as the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, in a proceeding before the
Tribunal under the provisions of 1946 Act read with 1964 Order, the same is not required, meaning thereby that the State is not required to adduce
evidence in an ex-parte proceeding, as the burden lies on the proceedee to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that he is not a foreigner, in view of
the provisions contained in Section 9 of the 1946 Act.
The Apex Court in the Union of India and Others -Vs- Ghaus Mohammad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1526, while considering the provisions of Section
9 of the 1946 Act has in clear terms held that by the said provision the onus of proving that the proceedee is not a foreigner is upon him. The Apex
Court has reiterated the said principle of law in Fateh Mohd., son of Nathu -Vs- Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1963 SC 1035 and Masud Khan
-Vs-Â State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1974)3 SCC 469, by holding that by reason of Section 9 of the 1946 Act whenever a question arises
whether a person is or is not a foreigner, the onus of proving that he is not a foreigner lies upon him and hence the burden is on the proceedee to
establish that he is a citizen of India in the manner claimed by him. In the case of The Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) -Vs- Union
of India and Another, reported in (2005)5 SCC 665, where the question relating to the constitutional validity of the 1983 Act was under consideration,
the Apex Court while dealing with various enactments made for dealing with the foreigners including the different provisions of 1946 Act has held that
Section 9 of the said Act casts the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the
case may be, on such person and therefore, when an order made under the 1946 Act is challenged and a question arises whether the person against
whom the order has been made is a foreigner or not, the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner is upon such a person. The Apex Court while
laying down the law relating to the burden of proof has also noticed the general rule in the leading democracies of the world that where a person
claims to be a citizen of a particular country, the burden is upon him to prove that he is a citizen of that country. In paragraph 26 of the said report the
Apex Court has observed as under:- ""26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to
be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place
of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like
under Section 6-A (1) (d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not
of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in
rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but
almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 before the Tribunal stated that he is the son of Late Nibaram @ Nibaran Mandal and placed Exhibit-A
Certificate of Registration in the name of his purported grandfather Kristo Mandal issued by the Sub-Deputy Registrar, Dhing on 14.12.1956 and
Exhibit-B, copy of Registered Sale Deed pertaining to a sale of a parcel of land, executed on 29.04.1970, by Nibaran Ch. Sarkar, Keroni Sarkar and
Shisaran Sarkar, all sons of Lt. Krishta Mohan Sarkar in favour of one Laskar Ali son of late Badchha Sheikh, but the petitioner No. 1 failed to prove
before the learned Tribunal that said Nibaran Ch. Sarkar was his father and Lt. Krishta Mohan Sarkar was his grandfather and that his father Nibaran
@ Nibaram Mandal and Nibaran Ch. Sarkar is the same and one person, who was the son of Krishta Mohan Sarkar. This reflects that the petitioner
No. 1 failed to show his linkage with said Nibaran Ch. Sarkar, son of Lt. Krishta Mohan Sarkar.
Similarly, the petitioner No. 2, though got ample opportunity to prove her claim, she did not adduce any evidence before the learned Tribunal and
she also failed to prove her linkage that she is the daughter of Subal Ch. Paul whose name appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1966 pertaining to No. 83
Bokani (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency, Assam.
From the aforesaid facts and law, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st Morigaon, Assam by the
impugned judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed in Case No. F.T.(C) 459/2010 (State of Assam Vs. Shri Biswanath Mandal and others) have
not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners herein have failed to discharge their burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 to prove themselves not to be foreigners and accordingly, declared them to be Foreigners under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Thus, the said judgment and order dated 8.3.2018 is not interfered with. Â
Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit and substance stands dismissed.