Why Assam woman fails Indian citizenship after court notes impossible February birth date
The Gauhati High Court upheld a Foreigners Tribunal order, ruling oral testimony alone cannot establish citizenship linkage without documentary evidence.
The court noted that the date “30.02.1990” recorded by the woman as her birth date was invalid, as February 30 does not exist in the English calendar. (AI-generated image) Indian citizen issue ruling: The Guhauti High Court has upheld a Foreigners Tribunal order refusing to recognise a woman as an Indian citizen, observing that the petitioner’s claimed date of birth “30.02.1990” was inherently invalid, as February does not have 30 days in the English calendar.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Pranjal Das noted that oral testimony alone in her favour was insufficient to establish linkage with her projected ancestor, Akash Ali, whose name had appeared in the 1966 voters’ list, in the absence of supporting documentary evidence.
“However, as well settled, mere oral evidence is not sufficient to build effective linkage evidence for such proceedings, and documentary evidence is essential. Now, as far as documentary evidence is concerned, Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 could not persuade the Tribunal to rule in favour of the petitioner,” the May 27 order noted.
Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Pranjal Das heard a woman’s plea challenging the tribunal’s order stating her as a foreigner
Woman seeking nationality
- On December 28, 2006, one reference was received from the Superintendent of Police (Border), Darrang Mangaldoi, against the petitioner, raising suspicions about her nationality and seeking an opinion regarding the same from the Foreigners’ Tribunal.
- Accordingly, a case was registered, and notice was issued to the petitioner over the Indian citizenship issue.
- The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statement along with the supporting documents for Indian citizenship.
- She also adduced evidence of herself and another witness claiming to be her uncle, supporting her case that she is an Indian citizen.
- She had submitted nine documents to back her Indian citizenship claim before the tribunal.
Documents submitted
- During the proceeding, she had submitted a voter list of 1966 of 73 Dalgaon with Akash Ali mentioned on it, and also submitted a voter list of 1993 of 68 containing names of Nur Islam (son of Akash Ali) and Jahura, whom she claimed were her parents.
- Relying on a Supreme Court judgement, the tribunal held that both the aforementioned documents were proved according to the law.
- Rejecting her documentary evidence, the tribunal held that merely submitting documents does not prove their content; it was held that documents must be proved through admissible evidence.
- The tribunal stated that the documents had to be confirmed by witnesses who could verify their authenticity and truthfulness.
- Advocate M Dev, on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the supporting documents submitted were the certified copies of the voters’ list, which are public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
‘30.02.1990 invalid birth date’
The court observed that the document submitted by the petitioner had mentioned Nur Islam’s name, whom she claimed as her father in relation to Aksh Ali, whose name appeared in the 1966 voters list; the court also noted that the date “30.02.1990” recorded by her as her birth date was invalid, as February 30 does not exist in the English calendar.
The Gauhati High Court noted that in her affidavit evidence, the petitioner claimed that her grandfather, Akash Ali, was recorded as Abu Bakkar in the voters list of 2010 along with her father, Nur Islam, and contended that both names referred to the same person.
The court noted that even if the tribunal’s objection regarding the electoral roll being a public document was ignored, the most significant issue was whether the petitioner could prove her linkage to her ancestor, Akash Ali; merely because the name Nur Islam was there in the 1993 list, it does not automatically prove that the petitioner is an Indian citizen.
However, as well settled, mere oral evidence was not sufficient to build effective linkage evidence for such proceedings, and documentary evidence was essential, and it was difficult to hold that the opinion of the Tribunal was perverse or constituted a complete misreading of evidence, the court said.
The court said that the author of the documents did not adduce evidence, and in the absence thereof, the tribunal did not commit any gross illegality in not accepting such documentary evidence.
20-year gap in voter lists
Recently, in a different case, the Gauhati High Court dismissed a plea filed by a woman, upholding the decision of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, which declared her a foreign national who entered India after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, highlighting an unexplained 20-year gap in the voter list records between 1965 and 1985.
A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Pranjal Das was dealing with a plea of a woman challenging the Foreigners Tribunal order. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof mandated under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
“We have also noted that in the voters’ lists, there is an inordinate and unexplained gap of about 20 years from 1965 to 1985, which is the most crucial period, as the cut-off date is March 25, 1971,” the court said on May 22.
Share
