Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010247082019 2026:GAU-AS:9360 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7757/2019 HASINA BEGUM W/O- GIAS UDDIN AHMED, VILL- 1 NO. PATAHARTARI, P.S. NAGARBERA, P.O. NAGARBERA, DIST- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN- 781127 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (R) AMINGAON P.O. AMINGAON DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN- 781031 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) KAMRUP (R) AMINGAON P.O. AMINGAON DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN- 781031 Page No.# 2/22 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECY. NIRBACHAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI-01 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY-05 7:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER KAMRUP (R) AMINGAON P.O. AMINGAON DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN- 78103 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. N. Islam Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC: Mr. A.I. Ali, learned SC,ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned SC F.T. matters and N.R.C Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Advocate Date on which judgment was reserved :18.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment :26.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : operative part of the judgment?:NA Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/22 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (Shamima Jahan, J.) Heard Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondents. 2. The petitioner by this application has endeavored to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the opinion dated 15.06.2018 (sic) passed by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Rural) No.1 in GFT (R) Case No. 25/2018, corresponding to IM(DT) Case No. 423/2001, by which the petitioner was declared as a Foreigner of post, 25.03.1971 stream. Facts 3. It is the petitioner's case that Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup instituted the IM(DT) Case No. 423/2001 against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, the matter was forwarded to IM(DT), Nalbari for determination of the nationality of the petitioner. Thereafter, in compliance with the judgment passed in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (5) SCC 665 case, the matter was sent back to Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (R) No.1 and the said case was registered for disposal. The Tribunal served a notice upon the petitioner on 18.12.2018 by showing her father's name as Nayeb Ali. The petitioner on receipt of the said Page No.# 4/22 notice, appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement. She exhibited 27 numbers of documents during the said proceeding. 4. Statements in brief made by the petitioner in her written statement: (i) The petitioner stated that she is the daughter of late Gias Uddin Mondal and is the wife of Gias Uddin Ahmed and that her place of birth is village Nayapara, Part-I, P.O. Bahati, P.S. Matia in the district of Goalpara, Assam. (ii) The petitioner stated that she was born on 26.01.1985 and that she did her schooling at Nayapara High Madrassa at her place of birth. (iii) The petitioner got married with Gias Uddin Ahmed on 19.01.2001 and since her marriage, she has been permanently residing at village No.1. Palahartari, P.S. Nagarbera in the district of Kamrup, Assam. (iv) The grandfather of the petitioner, namely Karim Mandal @ Abdul Karim Mandal was residing at her birth place and that he had moveable and immovable property in the said district i.e. Goalpara and that Khatian being Khatian No.73, Tauji No. 54 of Habraghat in the district of Goalpara was issued in his name in the year 1960-1961. (v) Her father namely Gias Uddin Mondal was enrolled in the NRC for the year 1951. (vi) Her grandfather's name appeared in the voters list of 1966, 1970 and 1979 and that further, her father's name was also shown in the subsequent voters list. (vii) After her marriage in 2001, she appeared in the voters list of 2005 along Page No.# 5/22 with her husband namely Gias Uddin Ahmed and also that in the subsequent voters list, her name appeared. (viii) She also appeared in the draft NRC list dated 30.07.2018 along with her family members. (ix) Her grandfather namely Abdul Karim Mandal had a property within the Goalpara area, out of which he sold a portion in the year 1963, 1968 as well as in 1971 by way of sale deeds. (x) Her father namely Gias Uddin Mondal also had a landed property within the Goalpara area and had sold a portion of it in 1984 by way of sale deed. (xi) After the death of her father, she had acquired the land property and her name was mutated in the land records, being the legal heir of her father. (xii) She placed a certificate issued by the Village Head Man i.e. Gaonburah of Palahartari Gaon, wherein it was stated that the said Gaonburah knew her and that she was staying at the stated matrimonial place. (xiii) She has in her possession the Elector voter ID issued by the Election Commission of India. (xiv) She declares that there is some mistake in the spelling of her name but she is the one namely Hasina Begum, daughter of Gias Uddin Mondal and that some mistakes were also there with regard to her father's name. (xv) She was suspected to be a foreigner and a case was referred but her other family members were not classified as foreigners. Page No.# 6/22 Examination of Defence Witnesses 5. Apart from the aforesaid written statement, the petitioner had filed her evidence on affidavit as DW1 and in the said affidavit she had reiterated most of the statements which she had stated in the written statement. The petitioner exhibited the following documents for consideration by the Tribunal: i. Exhibit No.1, certificate issued by Secretary, Sidhabari Gaon Panchayat. ii. Exhibit No.2, certificate issued by Secretary, Sidhabari Gaon Panchayat. iii. Exhibit No.3, School Certificate issued by the Superintendent, Nayapara High Madrassa. iv. Exhibit No.4, Khatian No.73, which was issued to her grandfather. v. Exhibit No.A, the NRC details in respect of her father and grandfather of the year 1951. vi. Exhibit No.5, voters list of 1966, wherein her grandfather's name was reflected as well as her father's. vii. Exhibit No.6, voters list of 1970, wherein her grandfather's name was reflected as well as her father's. viii. Exhibit No.7, voters list of 1979 showing father with grandmother. Page No.# 7/22 ix. Exhibit No.8, voters list of 1985 showing father with mother. x. Exhibit No.9, voters list of 1989, showing her parent's name. xi. Exhibit No.10, voters list of 1993, showing father's name along with his mother. xii. Exhibit No.11, voters list of 1997 showing father's name along with his wife/mother. xiii. Exhibit No.12, voters list of 2005 showing father's name with mother and brother. xiv. Exhibit No.13, voters list of 2010, showing father's name with mother and brother. xv. Exhibit No.14, marriage certificate. xvi. Exhibit No.15, voters list of 2005, showing her name with her husband. xvii. Exhibit No.16, voters list of 2010, showing her name with her husband. xviii. Exhibit No.17, voters list of 2015, showing her name with her husband. xix. Exhibit No.B, voters list of 2019, showing her name with her husband. Page No.# 8/22 xx. Exhibit No.C, draft affidavit copy of NRC, 2018. xxi. Exhibit No.18, sale deed of 1963. xxii. Exhibit No.19, sale deed of 1968. xxiii. Exhibit No.20, sale deed of 1971. xxiv. Exhibit No.21, copy of the patta. xxv. Exhibit No.22, copy of the patta. xxvi. Exhibit No.23, sale deed of 1984. xxvii. Exhibit No.24, the copy of zammabandi. xxviii. Exhibit No.25, certificate issued by Gaonburah. xxix. Exhibit No.26, the voter ID card of the petitioner. xxx. Exhibit No.27, the affidavit sworn by the petitioner declaring anomalies in the name of herself and her father. 6. The petitioner was cross-examined by the prosecution and during the said examination, she stated that her grandfather expired before she was born and that her father expired in the year 2015 and that her mother is still alive. She stated that in the voters list of 1966, the name of her grandfather, grandmother and uncles were enlisted. She further stated that she did not go to receive the GaonBurah certificate and that it was received by her mother and further that Exhibit No.2 i.e. Gaon Panchayat certificate was received by her younger brother. She further stated that she does not know in which year, she took admission in High Madrassa and that she studied in Nayapara High Madrassa till Page No.# 9/22 1999. She stated that she received a school certificate from the said High Madrassa in the year 2013. She also stated that she got married when she was 17 years of age and that her father had received a Kazi certificate. She thereafter stated that her father's name was inserted in the land documents and that her father had given her one katha land by way of gift. However, she stated that she does not know as to how her father obtained the said land. 7. Apart from the petitioner being examined as DW1, there are more defence witnesses and they are DW2, the husband of the petitioner, DW3, Sonowar Rahman, who was working as Lower Division Assistant in Nayapar High Madrassa School, DW4, Sarbesh Ali, the Sarkari Gaonburah and DW5, Bilifang Basumatary, the Secretary of Sidhabari Gaon Panchayat. 8. The husband of the petitioner was examined as DW2 and he stated that he got married with the petitioner on 19.01.2001 and since the day of his marriage, he and petitioner has been permanently residing at village No.1, Palahartari, P.S. Nagarbera in the district of Kamrup. He further stated few of the statements already made by his wife i.e. the petitioner. He also exhibited few documents which were already exhibited by the petitioner. This witness was cross-examined and during the said examination, he stated inter alia that his father in law's name was Gias Uddin Mondal and that his father in law died in the year 2015. He also stated that he did not know as to when the name of his father in law appeared in the voters list for the first time and he expressed his ignorance as to when his father in law entered India and other facts related to his father in law. 9. DW3, who was working as the LDA of Nayapara High Madrassa stated that the petitioner took admission in the said Madrassa in Class-VIII in the year 2000 Page No.# 10/22 and that Exhibit No.3 i.e. school certificate was issued by the then Superintendent of the School on 23.02.2003 namely Mohabbat Ali Mandal. The said witness was cross-examined and during the said examination, he stated that he was working as an LDA in the school since first day of February, 2016 and that the then Superintendent of the school, who issued the certificate retired on 31.01.2019 and that he had not carried the register book of issuing certificate on the day of his examination. He further stated that he had not seen the certificate and that he has carried the school register book with him on the said day. He also stated that he did not know whether petitioner studied in the said school and that he had submitted only on the strength of the permission letter as well as the authority letter given to him by the Superintendent of the school. 10. The Government Gaonburah was examined as DW4 and he stated before the Tribunal that he had given the certificate to the petitioner and that the father of the petitioner was Gias Uddin Ahmed. He also stated that petitioner got married and she has been staying in the place where he resides. This witness was cross-examined and during the said examination, he stated that he had issued the certificate but he had not brought the issue register with him. He also stated that he joined as a Gaonburah in 1987. He stated that while issuing the certificate, he had not verified the same with any office from where the said papers were issued but only on the information given by the petitioner, he had issued the same. 11. Gaon Panchayat Secretary was examined as DW5 and he stated before the Tribunal that he had issued the certificate to the petitioner but then he stated that he had not written with his own hand, the contents of the same and Page No.# 11/22 that he had issued the certificate on the information given by the mother of the petitioner. He also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the contents and it was only based on the information given by the petitioner and her mother. He further stated that on the basis of the voters list shown to him by the petitioner, he prepared the certificate. These are the evidence produced by the petitioner to establish her citizenship, in this case. The learned Tribunal had considered the said evidences and had given the following findings: i) There were many discrepancies in the names of the petitioner as well as her projected father, which was sought to be clarified by the petitioner by filing an affidavit but the same having no evidentiary value was not considered by the Tribunal. ii) The petitioner had not submitted the birth certificate. iii) In the evidence of the petitioner, specially during her examination, the facts were contradicted and the oral evidences and documentary evidences did not support her statement. iv) None of the family members of the petitioner except her husband had appeared as a witness in the instant case. v) The petitioner as such has failed to establish the linkage with her projected father and projected grandfather, whose names are stated to have appeared in the voters list of 1966 and 1970 as well as patta and sale deeds, respectively. 12. Considering the entire materials on record, the learned Tribunal was of the considered opinion that evidence of the petitioner is not trustworthy and that Page No.# 12/22 she had failed to discharge her burden of proving herself as an Indian Citizen. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner having failed on all counts was stated to have entered into the Country illegally after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory and the petitioner was declared as a Foreigner. Submissions 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had exhibited the voters list of 1966 wherein her grandfather appeared as a voter namely Abdul Karim Mandal, son of late Saha Mamud Mandal at serial no.127. He further submitted that the father of the petitioner also appeared in the said voters list at serial no. 131. Thereafter, he relied on the voters list of 1989, wherein the petitioner's fathers name was shown along with her grandmother namely Sundari Beya and further that the father of the petitioner was shown as son of Karim Mandal. He thereafter relied on subsequent voters list where similar position surfaced. He thereafter relied on the voters list where the name of the petitioner appeared along with her husband namely Gias Uddin, son of Lokman. He thereafter relied on the zamabandi exhibited as Exhibit No.24, by which it was reflected that as per order dated 27.11.2018, the legal heirs of late Gias Uddin Mandal were included and their names were mutated as the inheritors of the said land situated at village Nayapara Part-I, Mouza: Matia in the district of Goalpara. He placed that the name of the petitioner namely Hasina Begum was mutated in the land of her father after his death. He also relied on the certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah by which it was stated that petitioner, wife of Gias Uddin Ahmed had seen staying at the place mentioned in the said certificate. He also placed reliance on the voter ID card as well as the certificate issued by the Secretary, Gaon Panchayat. He further Page No.# 13/22 submitted that the petitioner by filing a written statement as well as by giving evidence on affidavit had proved her case that she is the citizen of India. 14. On the other hand, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for FT and Border matters submitted that the petitioner could not establish the link with her ancestor before the cut off date of 25.03.1971. He stated that although the name of the projected father of the petitioner appeared along with the projected grandfather of the petitioner in the voters list of 1966 but she could not place any voters list in which her name appeared along with her father. He also submits that the petitioner had not stated about her siblings in the written statement neither had stated in her evidence on affidavit nor in the cross- examination. In absence of the same, she could not establish her identity as an Indian Citizen. Further he submits that the certificate issued by the Gaonburah had the State Emblem and the same cannot be relied on and also due to the fact that the Gaonburah had issued the certificate only on the basis of the information given by the petitioner and her mother. As far as the school certificate is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the issuing authority was not examined and that the LDA of the said school had stated that he did not bring the school register for issuing certificates and that he had submitted only on the authorization given by the Superintendent of the School. He also submits that in absence of the names revealed by the petitioner with respect to her brothers and sisters, zamabandi cannot be believed. 15. These are the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Analysis and Findings 16. At the outset, this Court would like to deal with the written statement Page No.# 14/22 submitted by the petitioner, the same being the basic document to prove a case under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. In the written statement filed by the petitioner as has been stated above, the pleadings only in respect of the voters list wherein the projected father and the projected grandfather of the petitioner were shown as voters as well as the voters list, where the petitioner was shown along with her husband, were highlighted. In the said written statement, the alleged landed property belonging to the projected grandfather and projected father of the petitioner were also mentioned and further that sale affected in the year 1963, 1968, 1971 and 1984. The further statements made in the written statement was that the petitioner was the legal heir to her projected father and that land was mutated in her name and further that she possessed certificates issued by the Gaonburah and Secretary, Gaon Panchayat as well as the elector voter ID card. There are no pleadings in the said written statement to the effect as to who were the brothers and sisters of the petitioner, the place of birth and citizenship of the parents of the proceedee as well as the details about other relatives etc. In Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (5) SCC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as follows: "There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Some times the place of birth of his grand parents may also be relevant like u/s 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of Page No.# 15/22 proving that fact is upon him." 17. Further this Court in Rashminara Begum, wife of Manirul Islam Vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (4) GLT 346, this Court had held as follows: "Written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee before the Foreigners Tribunal. Keeping in mind the mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act,1946, it is incumbent upon the proceedee to disclose at the first instance itself i.e., in his written statement all relevant facts specially within his knowledge having a material bearing on his claim to citizenship of India. Material facts pleaded in the written statement are thereafter required to be proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is also trite that a party cannot traverse beyond the pleadings made in the written statement." Admittedly, the relevant facts specially within the knowledge of the petitioner which has a material bearing on the case of the petitioner to establish her citizenship, were not placed in the written statement filed in the present case. 18. The endeavor by the petitioner to substantiate her claim for citizenship was made by placing the school certificate which was issued by the then Superintendent of the School namely Mohabbat Ali. However, it is seen that the Lower Division Assistant, who was examined to prove the contents of the school certificate stated as DW3 that he was not the issuing authority and that he had not carried the register book for issuing certificate on the date when his examination was conducted. It is no res integra that to prove a certificate and to prove the contents of the certificates are two different things. It has been held by this Court that in order to prove the contents of the certificate, the issuing authority should be examined. In the instant case, the Lower Division Assistant was examined for the prove of the contents of the certificate but he was not the issuing authority as required under the law. Page No.# 16/22 19. The petitioner further relied on the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, who had again stated before the Tribunal that he had issued the certificate only on the basis of the information given by the petitioner and her mother and also on perusal of the voters list. The same do not induce any authenticity to the said certificate issued by the Secretary, Gaon Panchayat. 20. The further, certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah also does not create confidence in view of two reasons, first: A bare perusal of the said certificate shows that the State Emblem was used in the said certificate, which again is impermissible under the law. Secondly, the Gaonburah, who was examined as DW4 had stated that while issuing the certificate, he had not verified with any Government records and that he had issued the same only on the information given by the petitioner. 21. This Court in Afuja Begum @ Afruja Begum Vs. Union of India passed in W.P.(C) No. 7340 of 2016 delivered the judgment holding inter alia that under Section 1 of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use Rules), 2007 framed under Section 11 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, a Gaonburah is not a authorized authority to use the said emblem and the use of the same makes a document inadmissible in law. The relevant portion in the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "That apart, we also notice that the State Emblem of India was embossed at the top of the certificate issued by the Gaonburah. Under Schedule 1 of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007 framed under section 11 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, a Gaonburah is not an authorized authority to use the State Emblem in a certificate issued by him. Rule 10 clearly provides that no person other than those authorized shall use the State Emblem in any manner. Such unauthorized use of the State Emblem would render Ext-3 inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the State Emblem of India embossed in any official document has to conform to the design as set out in Appendix I or Appendix II to the aforesaid Page No.# 17/22 Act. The motto “Satyameva Jayate” written in Devanagri script below the profile of the Lion Capital is part of the State Emblem of India. In both Appendix I and Appendix II, the motto “Satyameva Jayate” is written in bold and straight Devanagri Script and not in italics. In Ext-3, the motto “Satyameva Jayate” is in italics, which is a dear give away that it is not genuine, besides being inadmissible." 22. This Court by another judgment delivered in Ramila Khatun Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (4) GLT 373 had held that in absence of examination of the issuing authority, the certificate cannot be relied on. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: "It is trite that documentary evidence would have to be proved on the basis of the record and the contemporaneous record must substantiate and prove the contents of the document. Proof of document is one thing and proof of contents is another. Not only the document would have to be proved but its contents would also have to be proved. That apart, the truthfulness of the contents of the document would also have to be established from the record. A document or the contents of the document cannot be proved on the basis of personal knowledge. ..." 23. The further reliance by the petitioner on the NRC details of 1951 is also not admissible in law as laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court. One of them is the judgment delivered in Abdul Mojid Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2019 (2) GLT 45. This Court had held that documents are not admissible in evidence if they are computer generated statements and in absence of authentication and certification by competent officer of the department as required under Section 65 B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1972, no reliance can be placed on such documents. Further, it was held that the NRC documents being at the draft stage is yet to be completed and that no finality can be attached to such documents and as such, the same is not applicable in law. 24. The voters list which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner to exemplify the fact that her father and her grandfather was in the voters list of Page No.# 18/22 1966 and 1970 cannot , however, establish the link in absence of her name along with her father. She had placed the voters list of herself with her husband and his family. It is a settled position of law that the proceedee has to establish the linkage with his or her ancestor through documents prior to 25.03.1971. Here there is none. Further, it has been held that voters list per se will not establish the linkage and that it requires other documents on record. In Aziz Mia Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 (4) GLT 46, this Court had held that voters list are not sufficient to prove the nationality of a proceedee and the relevant portion is hereinbelow: "We are constrained to observe that a mere claim by a suspected person by referring to a voters’ list claiming a person therein to be his father is not a conclusive proof and that by doing so, the person has discharged the burden that he is not a foreigner. This is because there is also a further requirement to prove that the person who is reflected in the voters’ list relied upon is actually the father of the person who makes the claim the claim will have to be substantiated with further material/materials acceptable in law." 25. The next point to be considered by this Court is the relevancy of the marriage certificate exhibited by the petitioner as Exhibit No.14. In the said certificate, it is seen that Giasuddin Ahmed, son of Lokman Ali married the petitioner being daughter of Giasuddin Mandal of village Nayapara Part-I under P.S. Matia in the District of Goalpara and that the marriage was solemnized on 19.01.2001 but the further requirement is not complied with for proving the said documents to establish the fact that the petitioner is daughter of said Giasuddin Mandal. The Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registrar i.e. the Sadar Kazi, Nagarbera was not examined as a witness to prove the contents of the said certificate. The said certificate could at best prove the shifting of the petitioner to her matrimonial home. The Supreme Court in Rupajan Begum Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579 held that a certificate itself by no Page No.# 19/22 means establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate and that it only enables its holder to establish a link between the holder and the person from whom legacy is claimed and in absence of the examination of the issuing authority, the same cannot be made applicable. 26. Furthermore, the sale deeds exhibited by the petitioner were all post 1971 documents which has no role to play in establishing the citizenship of the proceedee. Furthermore, the zamabandi placed by the petitioner is also post 1971 document and further in absence of her pleadings relating to her siblings, the same cannot be relied on to establish the case of the petitioner. 27. It is also no res integra that electoral photo Identity card is not a prove of citizenship. It has been held in Munindra Biswas Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 7426/2019) decided on 12.02.2020 that the said documents are only meant for identification or of availing services and they do not over-ride the basic legal requirement of citizenship as prescribed under the Act. It is also noticed in the instant case that an affidavit was sworn by the petitioner stating inter alia that there are anomalies in the name of her father as well as herself. However, the same cannot set right the said anomalies as laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A self declaration affidavit cannot be considered in evidence and the said aspect has been held clearly by this Court in Jan Nessa Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (5) GLT 499 and the relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow: "It is already settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smti. Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 366 that affidavit filed by a party sou-motu and not under direction of the Court cannot be termed as evidence. Affidavit is not included as evidence unless law specifically permits. Affidavit are not included in the definition of 'evidence' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only if for sufficient reason Court passes an order Page No.# 20/22 under Order 19, Rule 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above, Exhibit-T affidavit placed by the petitioner cannot be considered as an evidence." 28. It is as such noticed that all the points raised by the petitioner are not relevant for declaring the petitioner as an Indian Citizen. Furthermore, while adjudicating the issue involved in the instant petition, we are reminded that a writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should confine its powers only towards examination of the decision making process. In the present case, the Tribunal had given its findings based on facts, and it is a trite law that findings of facts are not liable to be interfered with, by a writ Court under its certiorari jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the previous case laws on the jurisdiction of a Writ Court with regard to the Writ of Certiorari had held in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another -vs- Bikartan Das; reported in AIR 2023 SC 4011, as follows:- "49. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context: Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. 50. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. 51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order Page No.# 21/22 challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction there under can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not." 29. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 440, the Hon’b;le Apex Court had laid down the essential features of a writ of certiorari. In the said decision, it has been exhaustively explained by B.K. Mukherjea, J that writ in the nature of certiorari could be issued in ‘all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner’ so long as the broad and fundamental principles are kept in mind. It was held as follows:- "7. … In granting a writ of ‘certiorari’, the superior court does not exercise the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal ….. 8. The supervision of the superior court exercised through writs of certiorari goes on two points, as has been expressed by Lord Summer in King v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited [(1922) 2 AC 128, 156]. One is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of law in the course of its exercise. …. 9. Certiorari may lie and is generally granted when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.” 30. As such, we observe herein that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court Page No.# 22/22 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. 31. In the instant case, it is noticed that the voters list did not establish the link of the petitioner with her projected father and grandfather. Further the certificates produced by the petitioner were not prove in accordance with law. Furthermore due to lack of details in written statement, this Court is of the view that opinion dated 15.06.2018 passed by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup(Rural), No.1 in GFT (R) Case No. 25/2018 by which the petitioner was declared as a Foreigner does not call for any interference. 32. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 33. The actions consequent upon the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal would follow in accordance with law. 34. The records of the learned Tribunal be returned forthwith along with copy of this order. 35. The writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant