Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010195752019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1558/2020 ABDUL HUSSAIN S/O AMEER, R/O VILL. RACHIM NANBOR, P.S. KAMRUP, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINSITRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE( B) NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 5:THE FOREIGNERS REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE NAGAON Page No.# 2/5 P.S. NAGAON ASSAM 8:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A. Sarma Advocate for the respondent No.1 : Mr. B. Sarma, CGC Advocate for respondent No. 3,4,5,6 &7 : Mr. J. Payeng, SC Advocate for respondent No. 8 : Ms. R.B Bora, Govt. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. N. Kalita, SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Date on which judgment is reserved : 13.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 24-06-2026 (Pranjal Das, J)tra nscriptions Heard Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt., and NRC for the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; Mr. N. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent no. 2; Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the respondent No.1 and Ms. R.B Bora, learned State counsel for the respondent No.8. 2. The petitioner invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed the judgment and order dated 07.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No. 9th, Nagaon, in FT Case No. 17/2015, whereby answering the reference against the petitioner as proceedee before the Tribunal, it was held that he is a foreign national of the post 25/03/1971 stream. Page No.# 3/5 3. By the said opinion, the learned Tribunal, answering the reference referred by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, declared that the proceedee, Abdul Hussain, was an illegal migrant post- 25/03/1971 stream. During the proceeding, the proceedee appeared and submitted a written statement and documents denying that he was a foreign national and contending that he is a citizen of India by birth and son of one Amir Hussain. 4. During the proceeding, the petitioner adduced testimony of five witnesses, including himself. DW- 1 is the petitioner himself, who adduced evidence in his favour contending about being an Indian citizen. DW-2, Abdul Hasen, is stated to be the brother of the proceedee. DW-3 was a government Gaonburah of Buklung Kissam. DW-4 was another Gaonburah and DW-5, Chechu Sheikh, was a private witness. During the proceeding, the petitioner adduced in evidence several documents, more importantly, a certified copy of a Jamabandi as Exhibit 5(1) and a copy of the NRC of 1951 as Exhibit 8. However, upon adjudication, the learned Tribunal returned a negative finding against the petitioner, resulting in the instant writ petition. 5. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, supporting the contentions of the writ petition, submits that there are materials to indicate the presence of the petitioner's ancestors prior to the cutoff date of 25-03-1971. He refers to the NRC of 1951 exhibited and also a Jamabandi of 1968-69. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 01-02-1964. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Payeng, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 6 submits that the essential documentary linkage has not been built by the petitioner during the proceeding to be held not a foreigner. Referring to the decision of Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 45, it is submitted that the NRC is not an acceptable document in support of citizenship, if claimed solely upon it. 7. We have perused the relevant materials, considered the rival submissions, and the decision cited at the Bar. 8. Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in such a reference proceeding, the burden of proof is upon the proceedee to prove that he is not a foreign national. In terms of a catena of decisions of this Court and also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is now well-settled that the proceedee has to prove a linkage by way of documentary evidence with projected ancestors who were Indian citizens prior to the cutoff date of 25-03-1971. Oral evidence has been held to be only corroborative in such proceedings. Page No.# 4/5 9. On the touchstone of these principles, now it has to be seen as to whether the proceedee was able to discharge the burden or has failed to do so, as held by the Tribunal. From the materials, it is clear that no voters list prior to 25-03-1971 was adduced in evidence. However, the petitioner as proceedee has exhibited as Exhibit 8, a copy of NRC of 1951, purportedly containing, the projected parents of the proceedee. 10. It may be mentioned herein that the projected father of the petitioner, Abdul Hussain, is stated to be Amir Hussain. However, in the decision of Abdul Majid (supra), relied upon by the respondents, it has been held that NRC extracts produced to prove domicile in India is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. The relevant paragraph-11 may be reproduced herein below: “11. Ext.1 is stated to be a true copy of National Register of Citizens (NRC), 1951 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri on 17.10.1985 containing the names of Haru Dewani, Belaton Nessa, Madan Sheikh (Matin) and Hanif Shekih. NRC, 1951 was prepared on the basis of the Census Act, 1948. As per Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948, record of census are not open to inspection and thus not admissible in evidence. Therefore, in Bhanbhasa Sheikh Vs. Union of India, 1970 Assam LR 206, a Single Bench of this Court categorically held that NRC extracts produced to prove domicile in India is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in Bhanbhasa Sheikh (supra). Therefore, Ext.1 is no evidence in the eye of law.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Another crucial document relied upon by the petitioner as proceedee, is a Jamabandi of the year 1968-69, where the name of one Abdul Hussain, son of late Amir Hussain, is mentioned as Pattadar No. 8. The relevant order of the Circle Officer is stated to be dated 03-05-1999, indicating the recording of the patta in favor of Abdul Hussain in place of the struck-out pattadars on the basis of purchase of the land. With regard to such land documents also, it has been held by this Court in Monir Uddin Ahmed -versus- Union of India, (2023) 3 Gau LR 68 - that certified copy of a Jamabandi cannot be the sole basis for claiming citizenship. The relevant paragraph-37.8 of the said decision may be reproduced herein below: ”37.8 We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the State that the certified copy of a Jamabandi cannot be the sole basis for claiming citizenship. However, it cannot be divested of any evidentiary value. It can show that the person named in the Jamabandi possessed the land in the locality'/area mentioned and if the said Jamabandi reflected the name of “Eusub Ali Talukdar” as the father of the proceedee, it can be a corroborating evidence as regards Page No.# 5/5 the claim of the proceedee that he is the son of the projected father, “Eusub Ali Talukdar”. For this, there is no need to produce the documents showing the name of the original pattadar. In our view, non-mentioning of the name of the original pattadar or the sale deed cannot divest the evidentiary value of the said Jamabandi in view of the decisions referred to above.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Thus, the copy of the NRC adduced in evidence, as well as the Jamabandi, could not be sufficient stand-alone documents in terms of the aforesaid case laws to prove that the petitioner was an Indian citizen prior to 25-03-1971. As already mentioned earlier, no voters list prior to the crucial cutoff date has been adduced in evidence. The learned Tribunal, in rendering the opinion, has rightly held that that upon perusal of the voters list of 1997, where the name of Amir Hussain, petitioner’s father appeared for the first time, his age is 62 years and going by the same, his date of birth would be in 1935, and - therefore, the said Amir Hussain having attained the age of voting prior to 1965 - appears for the first time as a voter in 1997 and that the same has been held to be a discrepancy. 13. We agree with the said determination by the learned Tribunal. The documents issued by the Gaonburah regarding identification of the petitioner and exhibited during the proceeding have been discarded by the Tribunal due to improper mode of proof. 14. We do not find any infirmity in the same. It is clear that the said documents were not issued on the basis of any contemporaneous records. The absence of any voters list of the petitioner or projected father, prior to 25-03-1971 constitutes a significant infirmity and an evidentiary gap, in the case of the petitioner as proceedee before the Tribunal. 15. Thus, upon perusing the materials and evidence, we are also of the view that there is no adequate documentary link evidence to show that the petitioner was an Indian citizen and not an illegal migrant after 25-03-1971. 16. Consequently, the impugned judgment and opinion dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 9th, Nagaon, in FT Case No. 17 of 2015, is hereby upheld and confirmed. 18. The writ petition stands dismissed. 19. Interim order stands vacated. 20. Return the original records. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant