How a Man From Assam Failed To Prove Indian Citizenship Despite Submitting 15 Documents
The Gauhati High Court upheld a Foreigners Tribunal's decision declaring an Assam resident a foreigner despite him submitting 15 documents, including 1951 NRC records, voter lists, PAN and EPIC cards. The court ruled that the evidence was either legally inadmissible or insufficient to establish citizenship, citing documentary gaps, inconsistencies and failure to prove lineage.
he Gauhati High Court has upheld a Foreigners Tribunal's decision declaring an Assam resident a foreigner, ruling that the 15 documents he submitted failed to legally establish his Indian citizenship. The Division Bench held that the evidence presented was either inadmissible under law or insufficient to prove his claimed lineage and citizenship, dismissing his writ petition.
The petitioner, a daily wage labourer living in rented accommodation near Guwahati, had submitted documents including copies of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), voter lists spanning several decades, a school certificate, a PAN card, an Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and oral testimony from his father. However, the High Court found that the evidence did not satisfy the legal requirements under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Assam Launches Statewide Crackdown on Illegal Sawmills.
How the Court Viewed the Citizenship Claim
A Division Bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan observed that the petitioner had failed to establish a legally admissible link with his claimed ancestors.
In its order, the court held that the petitioner had failed to "discharge his burden as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian Citizen". The High Court also concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal error in the Foreigners Tribunal's findings. Assam: Ex-NSUI Leader Dwaipayan Sen Dies by Suicide After Death of 2 Beloved Pet Dogs.
Why the 1951 NRC Records Were Rejected
Among the documents submitted were computer-generated extracts of the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) containing the names of the petitioner's father and grandparents.
The court, however, upheld the Tribunal's finding that "the NRC of 1951 were a photocopy/computer generated details, which was not proved in accordance with law".
According to the judgment, the records were computer-generated extracts carrying Image IDs and lacked the certification required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Bench further observed that "NRC extract produced to prove domicile in India is inadmissible in evidence", citing Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948, which bars the admissibility of Census records as evidence.
Other Documents Also Found Insufficient
The petitioner had also submitted:
- Certified voter lists from 1966 to 2017
- A 1973 land purchase deed executed by his grandfather
- A 2017 school certificate
- PAN card
- Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC)
The court rejected the school certificate because the headmaster who issued it was not examined as a witness and the admission register was not produced.
The 1973 land deed was found insufficient because it did not establish a clear lineage between the petitioner and his grandfather. The judgment also noted the absence of land revenue records explaining how the property devolved within the family.
The court further reiterated that PAN and EPIC cards are "not proof of citizenship", a position it described as well settled in law.
Discrepancies in Voter Lists
The High Court identified multiple inconsistencies in the voter lists submitted by the petitioner.
These included conflicting age records, the appearance of names of individuals whose relationship to the petitioner was not established, and entries showing family members residing across three different villages—Dhobakura, Ghugudoba and Hashdoba—without credible documentary linkage.
According to the court, these inconsistencies prevented the voter lists from establishing a continuous family lineage dating back to the pre-1966 period.
Oral Testimony Not Sufficient
The petitioner and his father also gave oral evidence before the Tribunal.
However, the High Court held that "documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony".
The court also noted discrepancies in the father's testimony, including inconsistencies relating to the petitioner's year of birth and questions over whether the witness was the same individual whose name appeared on later voter lists.
Court Upholds Foreigners Tribunal Order
After examining the record, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision.
"The petitioner has not been able to establish that the learned Tribunal had committed any patent error in appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record," the judgment stated.
The Bench further observed that it found "no material to hold that the opinion assailed in this writ petition is bad on facts or in law" and that the petitioner's counsel "could not show that the said opinion was perverse on any count whatsoever." Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Foreigners Tribunal's opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner was upheld.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jul 01, 2026 10:35 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
