Gauhati High Court rejects man's citizenship claim despite 15 documents

The Gauhati High Court recently upheld a Foreigners Tribunal's order declaring a Guwahati resident a foreigner, after finding that the 15 documents he relied upon had failed to establish his Indian citizenship [Aminul Hoque v Union of India & Ors.]..A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan dismissed the petition filed by 38-year-old Aminul Hoque, who had challenged a 2019 order of the Foreigners Tribunal. Hoque had argued that he was an Indian citizen by birth and relied on a series of documents, including the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), electoral rolls from 1966 onwards, a 1973 land sale deed, his PAN card, Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and school records to trace his family's presence in Assam before the 1971 cut-off date..However, after examining these evidences, the Court concluded that the Hoque had failed to prove his citizenship."Though the petitioner had exhibited 15 (fifteen) documents as exhibits, the same does not appear to help the petitioner to establish that he 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," observed the Court..The Court noted that Hoque had failed to establish a continuous documentary link between himself and his projected ancestors. Hoque had contended that differences in the spelling of his parents' and grandparents' names across official records were the result of clerical errors. He also explained that his family had moved from one village to another because of erosion caused by the Brahmaputra River, which explained why their names appeared in voter lists from different places over the years..The Court however noted that it was not particularly concerned by minor spelling differences in names. It found that Hoque had failed to produce convincing evidence showing that the family appearing in records from different villages was the same family. Additionally, the Court noted that there were unexplained changes in ages, family members and places of residence across the documents. It also observed that there was no independent records to support the claim that the family had relocated over time..The Court also rejected Hoque's reliance on the computer-generated extracts of the 1951 NRC. It held that they had not been proved in accordance with the law governing electronic records. The Court further held that the 1973 land sale deed submitted by Hoque only showed that land had been purchased by his projected grandfather but did not establish relationship between the both of them..The Court also made it clear that identity documents issued by government authorities cannot, by themselves, establish citizenship. "It is well settled that PAN Card and EPIC are not proof of citizenship," noted the judgment.The Court also agreed with the Tribunal that Hoque's school certificate could not be relied upon because its author had not been examined and the original school admission register had not been produced. Likewise, it held that the oral testimony of the petitioner's father, who identified him as his son, could not by itself establish citizenship in the absence of documentary evidence linking the family to Indian ancestors..Rejecting the challenge to the Tribunal's findings, the Court observed, "In this case in hand, 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, or that it considered extraneous materials or that the decision was based on ignorance of law or in disregard to the provisions of law.".Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the consequences flowing from the Foreigners Tribunal's 2019 order to follow..Advocate MU Mahmud appeared for Aminul Hoque (petitioner).Central Government Counsel B Deka represented the Union of India.Standing Counsel AI Ali represented Election Commission of India.Standing Counsel for Foreigners Tribunal and Border Matters J Payeng appeared for the State of Assam, NRC authorities and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kamrup.Junior Government Advocate RB Bora represented Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kamrup (M), and the Officers-in-Charge of Azara and Lakhipur Police Stations..[Read Judgment]