Guwahati: Documents fall short in citizenship case

Guwahati: Gauhati High Court while hearing a writ petition stated the petitioner had exhibited 15 documents as exhibits, the same does not appear to help the petitioner to establish that has been able to discharge his burden as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1964 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian Citizen.

This Section states that the onus of proving citizenship lies on the person if a question arises about whether they are a foreigner.

A bench of justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan on June 30 stated, “Though the petitioner has exhibited 15 documents as exhibits, the same does not help the petitioner to establish that he has been able to discharge his burden as required under Section 9...to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen.”


Aminul Hoque, the petitioner, submitted copies of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), which recorded the names of his grandparents and father, certified copies of voter lists showing his parents’ and his names from 1966 to 2017, land purchase documents from 1973, a Permanent Account Number (PAN), voter IDs, and a school certificate.

Hoque’s father appeared in court and identified the former as his son. But the court held that mere oral evidence without documentary evidence “which is admissible and relevant” was insufficient to prove the two are linked.

In February 2019, a foreigners’ tribunal in Assam’s Kamrup declared Hoque a foreigner. He moved the high court. Hoque said that due to poverty he was working as a day labourer in Guwahati by staying in a rented house at village- Borbori under Azara Police station. The Investigating Officer, who had come for enquiry, gave his report without fair or proper enquiry.

Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is a migrant worker, and he has been declared to be a foreigner merely because of some discrepancies in the names of his father and grandfather in some documents, which is not sustainable in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of India.

The bench ordered, “At this juncture, notwithstanding that the father of the petitioner has four names, viz. , Mohiruddin Sheikh @ Mahruddin Sheikh @ Mohiruddin @ Mohir Uddin, the Court does not take a serious note of the spelling discrepancies in the names of the grandfather and father of the petitioner, which appears on a comparative reading of the hereinbefore referred voters’ lists. Thus, even after taking into account that the father of Mohiruddin Sheikh @ Mahruddin Sheikh @ Mohiruddin @ Mohir Uddin is shown to be Pasan Ali, but the petitioner has failed to show that all the projected members of the family Pasan Ali or Mohiruddin or Aminul Hoque, the petitioner are not continuously together in all the voters lists of three villages, i.e. Dobakura, Ghugudoba and Hashdoba. It appears that to fill-up the gaps, the defence of the petitioner is structured around the exhibited voter’s lists. Without support of any document, it has been argued that there was shifting of the family from Dobakura to Ghugudoba and Ghugudoba to Hashdoba. To match with the names in the voter’s lists, it has been argued that there was a mistake in recording of names in voter lists”.

The Court added the petitioner had exhibited the School certificate issued by the Headmaster of Hashdoba Anchalik High School on 20.10.2017, stating therein that the pupil named therein had left the school on 20.08.1999. The author of the certificate had not come and deposed to support the certificate and the petitioner had not called for the school admission register to prove the entries made in the said school certificate.