Citizenship Case: The Guwahati High Court has made a significant decision regarding citizenship based on documents. The court ruled that individuals must prove their Indian identity under the Foreigners Act, emphasizing that simply having numerous documents is not sufficient. Despite presenting 16 documents, a man’s petition was rejected by the court as he failed to resolve name discrepancies and establish family connections in the paperwork, ultimately failing to confirm his Indian citizenship. Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Shamima Jahan issued this order on June 30.
According to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, individuals are solely responsible for proving their Indian citizenship when questioned, as demonstrated in this case where even with 16 documents, the petitioner could not confirm his citizenship.
The case involved Aminul Haque, who was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal in Assam’s Kamrup district on February 28, 2019. Aminul challenged this decision in the Guwahati High Court by presenting various documents such as the 1951 National Register of Citizens, voter lists from 1966 to 2017, and land purchase records from 1973, along with personal documents like PAN card, voter ID, and school certificates.
During the proceedings, Aminul’s father testified in court, confirming their relationship, but the court disregarded this oral testimony as insufficient without concrete documentary evidence. The court found two key deficiencies in the presented documents, highlighting inconsistencies in the voter lists from different villages and the lack of verification of a school certificate issued in 2017.
The court mentioned that despite the father of the petitioner having multiple names such as Mohiruddin Sheikh, Mahruddin Sheikh, Mohiruddin, and Mohir Uddin, the spelling differences in the names of the petitioner’s grandfather and father on the voters’ lists were not considered significant. Even though the father is listed as Pasan Ali, the petitioner could not prove that members of the family – Pasan Ali, Mohiruddin, or Aminul Hoque – were not consistently listed together on the voters’ lists of three villages: Dobakura, Ghugudoba, and Hashdoba.
The defense of the petitioner seemed to rely heavily on the presented voters’ lists to explain discrepancies. It was argued, without supporting evidence, that the family had moved from Dobakura to Ghugudoba and then to Hashdoba, leading to errors in recording names on the voter lists.
Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had submitted a school certificate issued by the headmaster of Hashdoba Anchalik High School on 20.10.2017, stating that the student had left school in 1999. However, the author of the certificate did not testify to validate its authenticity.
Comments are closed.