- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
In two orders passed recently, the High Court also added that, "Oral testimony alone is no proof of citizenship."
The Gauhati High Court recently observed that the burden to prove citizenship is entirely on the person claiming to be a citizen as far as proceedings before Foreigners' Tribunals are concerned.
In at least two orders passed recently, the Bench of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia observed that,
In the February 18 order passed in the matter of Nur Begum vs Union of India and ors, the High Court upheld a ruling passed against the writ petitioner, after finding that the documents presented were not sufficient to prove her projected linkage to persons residing in Assam before the prescribed cut off date in 1971.
The documents rejected include her school certificates, caste certificate, voter's lists referring to her projected grandparents and the electoral ID of her projected mother. The High Court observed,
Gauhati High Court
A day earlier, the High Court also ruled against another writ petitioner in Sahera Khatun vs Union of India and ors, on similar reasoning. The Court found that the petitioner had not adequately proved parental linkage to Assam prior to the cut-off date, rejecting documents presented, including the voter's lists of her projected grandparents, uncle, parents and brothers.
Further, in both cases, the Court also observed that oral testimony in favour of the petitioners' claim to citizenship, without accompanying documentary support, was not sufficient to prove citizenship. The Court held,
Applying this principle, the Court also declined to rely on oral testimony given by projected family members in favour of the two petitioners' claims. Both writ petitions were, therefore, dismissed by the High Court.
[Read the order passed in Nur Begum vs Union of India and ors]
[Read the order passed in Sahera Khatun vs Union of India and ors]