JUDGMENT AND ORDER : (Shamima Jahan, J.) Heard Mr. A.S.Tapadar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Mr. P. Sarma,learned Government Advocate, Assam, Mr N Kalita, learned counsel representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Ms A Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated 13.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Assam;Barpeta 11th, in FT Case No. (Bpt/11 F.T. 862/2016, corresponding to FT Case No. 222 of 2013), whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream. FACTS 3. The petitioner stated that she was born and brought up at her parental village of Jamadarbari Pathar, Sorbhog, Barpeta, Assam, and that she during filing of the petition was residing at Bagriguri Pathar, Sorbhog, District-Barpeta, being her husband’s place with her husband and other family members. She further stated that while she was staying with her husband, a Reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), subsequent to which a case was registered and a notice was issued to her. In response to the said notice, she submitted her written statement along with all necessary papers to establish her citizenship. She also stated that the Reference was made on mere suspicion and the Tribunal while declaring her as a foreigner, had just acted on police report without following the procedures and that the Police Report did not indicate the time of visit for enquiry and the witnesses examined. She relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Review Petition No. 22 of 2010, by which certain guidelines were laid down to be followed before initiation of process for Reference and that the said guidelines were not followed in the instant case. 4. She stated that her grandfather’s name, namely, Mayan Uddin (Nayan Uddin) was recorded in the NRC details of 1951 and that her father and mother, namely, Amzad Ali, son of Mayan Uddin and Pohela Khatun had also appeared in the final draft NRC list. 4. She stated that her grandfather’s name, namely, Mayan Uddin (Nayan Uddin) was recorded in the NRC details of 1951 and that her father and mother, namely, Amzad Ali, son of Mayan Uddin and Pohela Khatun had also appeared in the final draft NRC list. She, thereafter, stated that her grandfather appeared in the electoral roll of 1965, vide Serial No. 141 and House No. 71 for 47 Sorbhog Assembly Constituency of Khudmabari Village and that in the electoral roll of 1970, the name of her grandfather again appeared vide Serial No. 240 with the same house number for the same constituency. She then stated that the name of her father appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 vide Serial No. 1099 with House No. 11 for 40 Sorbhog Assembly Constituency of the same village. Similarly, in the electoral roll of 1993, 1997, 2005 as well as 2008, the name of her father again appeared to vote for the same constituency. She, thereafter, stated that in respect of electoral roll of 2014, the name of her mother appeared vide Serial No. 71 with House No. 27 for the same constituency. To further establish her citizenship as well as to establish her link with her father, the petitioner had obtained a Gaonburah Certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah, Md Montaz Ali. In the said Certificate, it was stipulated that the petitioner is the daughter of Amzad Ali of Village-Jamadarbori Pathar, P.S.- Sorbhog, District-Barpeta, and that the petitioner was married to one Anowar Hussain of Village-Borguri Pathar under the same district, and further that the petitioner is an inhabitant of Village-Jamadarbori Pathar. The petitioner had also obtained another Gaonburah Certificate issued by the Gaonburah of Village -Baguriguri Pathar, whereby it was stated that the petitioner was the wife of Anowar Hussain and daughter of Pohela Khatun of Village-Baguriguri Pathar. It was further stated that as per the knowledge of the said Gaonburah, the petitioner was residing at Baguriguri Pathar. The petitioner had also obtained another Gaonburah Certificate issued by the Gaonburah of Village -Baguriguri Pathar, whereby it was stated that the petitioner was the wife of Anowar Hussain and daughter of Pohela Khatun of Village-Baguriguri Pathar. It was further stated that as per the knowledge of the said Gaonburah, the petitioner was residing at Baguriguri Pathar. To further establish her linkage with her father, the petitioner has placed the Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster of Merajul M.E. Madrassa, Sahpur, P.O.- Sorbhog, wherein it was stated that the petitioner, daughter of Amzad Ali and an inhabitant of st Jamadarbari in the district of Barpeta left the school on 31 December, 2003, and that her age at that juncture was 15 years 10 months 1 day and that her date of birth was 30.02.1988. She had also relied upon the copy of the Jamabandi to show that her father, namely, Amzad Ali, had a Myadi land and the said fact was recorded in the Government land records. 5. The petitioner stated that in spite of the said documents, the SP(B) made a Reference to the Foreigners’ Tribunal and upon receiving the notice therefrom, she submitted a written statement and exhibited the relevant documents in support of her citizenship. She had also filed an additional written statement during the said proceeding. 6. In her written statement, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that she was born in the year 1988, at Jamadarbari Pathar, and that her grandfather’s name was enlisted in the NRC of 1951 and further that, her grandfather appeared as a voter in the voters’ lists of 1963, 1970. She also stated that her grandfather had nine children including her father and that her grandfather had purchased a plot of land at Khunabari village covered by Dag No. 449 and Patta No. 32 and the said land is mutated in the name of her father, her uncle and aunties. She, thereafter, stated that in the year 1985, her father shifted his residence permanently at Village-Jamadarbari Pathar and that her father’s name was enlisted in 1997 voters’ list. She then stated that she had three sisters and one brother and she got married with one Anowar Hussain and that out of the said wedlock, two children were born. She further stated that she was enrolled in the voters’ list of 2014. She then stated that she had three sisters and one brother and she got married with one Anowar Hussain and that out of the said wedlock, two children were born. She further stated that she was enrolled in the voters’ list of 2014. To substantiate her claim, she further relied on the Elector Voter Identity Card. 7. The petitioner was, thereafter, examined as DW No. 1, on 01.09.2018, and she stated almost the same statements as she had stated in her written statement and further stated that her father shifted from Khudnabari to Jamadarbari, before her birth, and that her father had four brothers and three sisters and that she has three other sisters and one brother. The petitioner was cross-examined and during the said examination, she stated that she does not know as to why her grandmother did not appear in the voters’ list of 1965 and that she first casted her vote in the year 2014, after her marriage and that she did not know why her husband’s name as well as his family members were not entered along with her. 8. The father of the petitioner, Sri Amzad Ali was examined as DW-2 and he gave his evidence-on-affidavit on 01.09.2018, stating, inter alia , that he is the son of Moinuddin Sk. and that his father and mother were enlisted as voters in the voters’ list of 1965 and 1970 and that he has five brothers and three sisters, the names of whom are mentioned in his deposition. He further stated that he had four daughters and one son and that his fourth daughter is the petitioner. He had also stated other particulars as stated by the petitioner, which is mentioned above. 9. This witness was cross-examined at length and he stated that his father appeared as a voter in the year 1970, along with his mother, but he did not know why his mother was left out in the voters’ list of 1965, and that he also did not know why his name was not entered in the voters’ list of 1970, he being born in 1954. He further stated that he voted for the first time in the year 1985, and further that, he reiterated that petitioner is his daughter. 10. He further stated that he voted for the first time in the year 1985, and further that, he reiterated that petitioner is his daughter. 10. The petitioner had submitted the following documents which were exhibited by the Court to substantiate her case: i) Exhibit-1, the copy of the NRC, wherein her grandfather appeared. ii) Exhibit-2, voters’ list of 1965. iii) Exhibit-3, voters’ list of 1970. iv) Exhibit-4, voters’ list of 1997. v) Exhibit-5, certified copy of Electoral Roll of 2014. vi) Exhibit-6, School Certificate issued by the Headmaster. vii) Exhibit-7, copy of Jamabandi. 11. The learned Tribunal considered the said documents along with the evidence of the petitioner and her father and by opinion dated 13.09.2018, had answered the reference in the affirmative, i.e, by declaring the petitioner as foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream mainly on the following grounds: i) The NRC 1951 relied upon by the petitioner was an uncertified copy and the same being prepared under Section 15 of the Census Act of 1948, has no evidentiary value. ii) The voters’ list of 1965 being a certified true copy wherein the projected grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as a sole elector, cannot be relied upon due to the fact that the projected grandfather of the petitioner was shown to have been dead by 1951, vide Exhbit-1. iii) On similar ground, Exhibit-3, i.e., the voters’ list of 1970, wherein the projected grandfather along with the projected father appeared was also rejected. iv) The voters’ list of 1997 is yet another certified copy, wherein the father and mother of the petitioner were shown as electors, was also not proved, being secondary evidence. v) The Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Merajul M.E. Madrassa was also not proved by calling the author thereof. vi) As far as the Jamabandi copy was concerned, which was shown to have been mutated in the name of the projected grandfather in the year 1965, was unbelievable since the projected grandfather was reportedly dead by 1951. vii) The presence of the husband of the petitioner was also doubted in the State of Assam. On these grounds, the learned Tribunal declared the petitioner as a foreigner and the same is challenged in the instant petition. SUBMISSIONS: 12. Mr. vii) The presence of the husband of the petitioner was also doubted in the State of Assam. On these grounds, the learned Tribunal declared the petitioner as a foreigner and the same is challenged in the instant petition. SUBMISSIONS: 12. Mr. A. S. Tapadar, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the documents submitted by the petitioner which were exhibited during the proceeding by the learned Tribunal were not proved in accordance with the law and that the only link of the petitioner with her father and grandfather was through the deposition of her father, Md Amzad Ali, examined as DW No. 2. He stated that the father during his deposition before the Tribunal has stated in clear terms that the petitioner is his daughter when he was examined in chief and he reiterated the same during his cross-examination. 13. The learned counsel relied on a judgment passed by this Court in Sujab Ali vs. Union of India ; which is reported in 2021 (4) GLT 664, to bring home the law enshrined under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is reproduced below:- “ 50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” By relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the evidence given by the father of the petitioner becomes a relevant fact and the same can be considered in reaching a conclusion. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for FT matters submitted that apart from the statement of DW-2, there are no linkage available with the petitioner to her father or grandfather and that the statement of DW-2, cannot be solely taken into account, without there being other materials on record. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on two judgments mentioned below: i) Nur Begum Vs. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on two judgments mentioned below: i) Nur Begum Vs. Union of India ; reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347, wherein this Court by judgment and order dated 18.02.2020, had held that the statement of the mother of the petitioner cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents, showing her relationship either to the projected father, further or to the petitioner. ii) The judgment delivered by this Court in Asia Khatoon Vs. Union of India; in WP(C) No. 4020 of 2017, on 21.11.2019, wherein it was similarly held that the deposition of the father of the petitioner cannot be relied upon in absence of any documents, showing his relationship to the petitioner. These were the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 15. In the instant case, it is noticed that Exhibit-1 is an uncertified copy of entry in NRC 1951 and that the said document is admittedly not admissible in evidence in case of a matter under the Foreigners’ Act. As such, it was rightly not relied upon by the learned Tribunal. As far as the voters’ list of 1965 is concerned, the same is the certified copy of the said list and although the same is an admissible piece of evidence to be considered as a secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, but the same is required to be proved in the Court. The said exercise of proving has not been done in the instant case. Same is in respect of the voters’ list of 1970 as well as voters’ list of 2014. In respect of other voters’ lists of 1989, 1993, 1997, 2005 and 2008, the same were not even certified copies. In view of the same, the said voters’ lists are not admissible in evidence in the instant case, as has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the evidence of the father examined as DW No. 2 establishes the link that petitioner is the daughter of DW No. 2, and the same is a relevant fact under the law, and which can be relied on, in the instant case, this Court gives the following findings- 17. Under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description lies upon such person. The said section starts with an non-obstante clause which implies that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act would not be applicable. Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. Burden of proof.--If in any case not falling under Section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person." 18. As such, it is seen that the burden of proof is on the proceedee and that the said burden never shifts. In the instant case, the petitioner could not establish the link with her projected father as well as her projected grandfather by virtue of any documents since the same were not proved. A fragile attempt was made to establish the said link by the sole deposition of her projected father. Oral testimony of DW-2 alone, sans any documentary support cannot be treated as sufficient to prove linkage or help the cause of the petitioner. We would reiterate that in a proceeding under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 and the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the evidentiary value of oral testimony without support of documentary evidence is wholly insignificant. Oral testimony alone is no proof of citizenship. The evidence of DW-2 cannot be considered as cogent, reliable and admissible evidence so as to establish her link to her projected grandfather or projected father. The main reason that the statement of the projected father or any other projected relatives would not be sufficient to establish the said link without the connected documents in cases under the Foreigners’ Act, is due to the serious allegations of national security, illegal entry and forged documents that are noticed to have been used by the proceedees. The main reason that the statement of the projected father or any other projected relatives would not be sufficient to establish the said link without the connected documents in cases under the Foreigners’ Act, is due to the serious allegations of national security, illegal entry and forged documents that are noticed to have been used by the proceedees. In Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India ; reported in ( 2005) 5 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court in Paragraph-63 has held that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it has become the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution of India. In Paragraph 64 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that presence of such a large number of illegal migrants from Bangladesh is in fact, an aggression on the State of Assam and has also contributed significantly in causing serious internal disturbance in the State. In Paragraph-70, it is stated that influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the north-eastern region. Their presence has changed the demographic character of that region. As such, it is the bounden duty on the Tribunal as well as other Courts of the country to carefully look into such matters more so, the documents placed by the suspected nationals and pass order thereupon. 19. It is as such noticed that simple saying by the projected relative of the proceedee that he or she is related to the petitioner would not suffice in proceedings under the Foreigners’ Act, which is the case here. Further, the reliance of Section 50 of the Evidence Act again cannot help the petitioner, inasmuch, as, a bare perusal of Section 50 of the Evidence Act, makes it clear that when the Court has to make an opinion with regard to relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct of any person, who is a member of the concerned family and which is within his special knowledge, becomes a relevant fact. However, it is no res integra that in order to establish a case under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, it is the conduct which is required to be seen like, in a given case, to find out as to whether ‘A’ is the son of ‘B’, the conduct of all the members of the family becomes relevant in treating ‘A’ as the son. This is not the case here. As such, Section 50 of the Evidence Act cannot come to any rescue of the petitioner. 20. In Dolgobinda Paricha Vs. Nirmal Charan Mishra ; reported in AIR 1959 SC 914 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that there are three essential requirements to Section 50 of the Evidence Act namely, (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfill the condition laid down in the later part of the section. The Apex Court held that 'opinion' means something more than mere retelling of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. The Apex Court further held that the true scope and effect of Section 50 of the Evidence Act has been correctly and succinctly put in Chandu Lal Agarwala Vs. Khalilar Rahman , reported in ILR (1942) 2 Cal 299, 309 , in the following words- "It is only 'opinion as expressed by conduct' which is made relevant. This is how the conduct comes in. The offered item of evidence is 'the conduct', but what is made admissible in evidence is 'the opinion', the opinion as expressed by such conduct. The offered item of evidence thus only moves the court to an intermediate decision: its immediate effect is only to move the court to see if this conduct establishes any 'opinion' of the person, whose conduct is in evidence, as to the relationship in question. The offered item of evidence thus only moves the court to an intermediate decision: its immediate effect is only to move the court to see if this conduct establishes any 'opinion' of the person, whose conduct is in evidence, as to the relationship in question. In order to enable the court to infer 'the opinion', the conduct must be of a tenor which cannot well be supposed to have been willed without the inner existence of the 'opinion'. When the conduct is of such a tenor, the court only gets to a relevant piece of evidence, namely, the opinion of a person. It still remains for the court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the factum probandum--as to the relationship in question." 21. By considering the above judgment, it is stated that Section 50 of the Evidence Act has no application in the instant case. The petitioner, therefore, had utterly failed to prove her linkage to Indian parents or grandparents relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date 25.03.1971, through cogent, reliable and admissible documents. 22. On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. We would also like to observe herein that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal although for the ends of justice, some exercise has been done to the said effect. We are, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, of the opinion that impugned order dated 13.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, th Assam; Barpeta 11th, in FT Case No. (Bpt/11 F.T. 862/2016, corresponding to FT Case No. 222 of 2013), does not call for any interference and the instant writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 23. The actions consequent upon the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal would follow in accordance with law. 24. The records of the aforesaid FT Case be returned to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal-III, Assam, Barpeta 11th, forthwith, along with a copy of this order.