Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010139602019 2026:GAU-AS:9686 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4738/2019 SULEMA KHATUN D/O- LATE INTAZ ALI, W/O- SULTAN AHMED @ SULTAN ALI, R/O- VILL- BHOJKHOWA, P.S- TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR P.O- TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR Page No.# 2/18 ASSAM PIN- 784001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SONITPUR P.O- TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : ASSTT.S.G.I., MD. I HUSSAIN,MR. F A HASSAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. L R MAZUMDER, SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. Md. I. Hussain, Adv. Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 6 : Mr. J. Payeng, Standing Counsel, NRC, Home & Political Department. Advocate for the respondent no. 3 : Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, ECI. : Mr. N. Kalita, Adv. Advocate for the respondent no. 5 : Mr. P. Sharma, Addl. Senior Govt. Adv, Assam. Date on which judgment is reserved : 04.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, J) Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, Home & Political Department for Page No.# 3/18 the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 6; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5. 2. Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Sulema Khatun, aggrieved by an order/opinion dated 11-03-2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 1st Tezpur, Sonitpur in F.T. Case No. 8 of 2018, arising out of Police Enquiry No. 263/2017, has assailed the same. By the said impugned order/opinion, the learned Tribunal answering the reference against the petitioner was pleased to declare her to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India from specified territory of Bangladesh, on or after 25-03-1971. 3. The brief facts are that, the Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur sent a reference by Police Enquiry No.263/2017 expressing doubts about the nationality of the petitioner, Sulema Khatun, with a prayer to decide as to whether the proceedee is a citizen of India or a foreigner. Accordingly, the reference case was registered vide FT case No. 8/2018 and notice was issued to the petitioner as a proceedee. Upon receipt of the notice, the proceedee appeared and filed her written statement claiming that she is an Indian citizen by birth. Subsequently, the proceeding started against her, during which she adduced evidence of four witnesses, including herself, her projected brother, one official of the Election office and one employee of the Sub-Registrar office. However, the Foreign Tribunal was not persuaded to agree with the contentions of the petitioner in the proceeding and answered the reference against her, as already stated; hence the instant writ petition. Page No.# 4/18 4. In the written statement, the petitioner claimed to be a citizen of India by birth, who was born in village- Barguri, within the jurisdiction of Tezpur Police Station in the district of Sonitpur and that it was 36 years back, at the time of filing the written statement. She further stated that her parents were Intaz Ali and Manikjan, who were original residents of the above stated village and their names appeared in the voter lists of 1966 and 1971 from the same village - Barguri. She also stated about her father, Intaz Ali, purchasing land in 1982, by executing a registered sale deed. It is further stated in the written statement that later, her parents, along with other family members, shifted to another village named -Rupkhuria, within the jurisdiction of the Tezpur Police Station in the same district and started to reside there permanently. It is further stated that in the voter list of 1997, the name of her parents, along with her elder brother Hazrat Ali, figured with regard to village Rupkhuria, and in the voter list of 2013, apart from her parents and the said elder brother, the names of her another brother, Iman Ali, and sister-in-law, Amena Khatun, also appeared. The petitioner stated about getting married to Sultan Ahmed of the village- Bhojkhowa, within the jurisdiction of Tezpur P.S., and shifted there, along with her husband after marriage. She stated that there are some small anomalies in the names and ages of her parents in the voter list, but these are mistakes done by the authorities. 5. In support of her contentions, the petitioner, during the proceeding, adduced evidence as DW1, in which she stated that she, a citizen of India by birth, was born at village - Barguri, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam, 36 years back and she is not a foreigner. She further testified that her parents, Intaz Ali and Manikjan, were original residents of village - Barguri, Page No.# 5/18 in the district of Sonitpur, Assam, and their names appeared in the voter lists of 1966 and 1971 from village - Barguri, with regard to No. 77 Tezpur LAC and, subsequently, no. 73 Tezpur LAC, respectively. She exhibited certified copies of the said voter lists as Exhibit A and B respectively. Regarding the land purchase mentioned in the written statement, DW1 stated the same in her testimony that on 23-02-1982, her father Intaz Ali bought a plot of land by executing a registered sale deed at Tezpur Sub- Registrar Office vide P.P. No. 43 (old) 3 (new), Dag No. 209 (new) new 210 Dag, new 190 Dag and new 2 P.P. and Dag No. 191. She exhibited the registered sale deed as Exhibit C. 6. DW1 testified about shifting of her family members including parents to village - Rupkhuria. She testified that in 1997, with regard to Rupkhuria gaon, the names of her parents and elder brother Hazrat Ali appeared in the voter list with regard to No. 73 Tezpur LAC, exhibiting the certified copy of the said voters list as Exhibit D. She testified that in 2013, the names of her mother, her elder brothers, Hazrat Ali and Iman Ali and sister-in-law, Amena Khatun, were figured in the same voter list of that year with regard to village - Rupkhuria against No. 73 Tezpur LAC. She exhibited the relevant voter list as Exhibit E. She also stated about her marriage to Sultan Ali of village - Bhojkhowa. 7. DW1 testified that in the registered sale deed, her father's name is mentioned as Intazali, but in other documents it is mentioned as Intaz Ali. In this regard, she stated that Intaz Ali and Intazali are one and the same person. Similarly, she stated that in the voter list of 1971, her mother's name is recorded as Manikjan Ali, but in all other documents, it is recorded as Manikjan, and that both are one and the same person. She Page No.# 6/18 also stated that in the voter list of 1966, her father's age is mentioned as 33 years; in the voters' list of 1971 as 37 years, and in the voter list of 1997 as 54 years. Similarly, her mother's age is recorded in the voter list of 1966 as 28 years; in the voter list of 1971 as 32 years; in the voter list of 1997 as 59 years, and in the voter list of 2013 as 69 years. In paragraph 13 of the evidence affidavit, DW1 stated that there were some anomalies in the names and ages of her parents in the voter lists, but these are mistakes done by the authorities. 8. In cross-examination, DW1 stated that she was born 36 years ago, in the village – Borguri under the jurisdiction of Tezpur Police Station, but she has not submitted any document regarding her birth. She stated about her grandfather's name as Agar Ali and mother's name as Manikjan. She stated about submitting the voter list of 1966 and 1971, and also the land documents of her father. She admitted that she had not mentioned details of her brothers and sisters, in the written statement. In cross- examination, she stated that she has two brothers, Hazrat Ali and Iman Ali, and also a sister-in-law. She stated that her father expired about 16 years back, but her mother is still alive. She denied the suggestion that Intaz Ali of Borguri village and Intaz Ali of Rupkhuria village are not the same person. And she denied that she is not the daughter of the said Intaz Ali. 9. The aforementioned Iman Ali, projected to be the brother of the petitioner, adduced evidence on her behalf as DW2, in which he stated about the petitioner being a citizen of India by birth, born and raised in Barguri village, under the jurisdiction of Tezpur PS. He also stated about his parents being Intaz Ali and Manikjan, whose names figured in the Page No.# 7/18 voter lists of 1966 and 1971, under No. 77 Tezpur LAC and No. 73 Tezpur LAC respectively. DW2 also testified about his father Intaz Ali executing a sale deed on 23-02-1982 with regard to a plot of land. He stated about shifting of his parents and other family members to village - Rupkhuria. He also testified about his parents and brother Hazrat Ali figuring in the voter list of 1997 in village Rupkhuria Gaon, under No. 73 Tezpur LAC. He further testified that in 2013, the name of himself, his mother, one elder brother and sister-in-law, being Hazrat Ali and Amena Khatun respectively, appeared in the voter list against No.73 Tezpur LAC. He also stated about Intazali and Intaz Ali being one and the same person, as also Manikjan and Manikjan Ali being one and the same person. He also stated about minor anomalies in the ages reported in the voter list and attributed the same to the mistakes on the part of the authorities. He stated that his father died at Rupkhuria, about 4 years prior to the deposition and that his mother is still alive. He admitted in para 15 that the petitioner had approached the Lat Gaonbura of village - Rupkhuria, for a certificate but it was refused as her name was mentioned as “D” voter. 10. He was also cross-examined in which he stated that his sister named Sulema was born in village – Barguri. He stated that he has five brothers and sisters, namely Harsat Ali, Tahura Nessa, Ashia Khatun, Iman Ali, Rohima Khatun, Afsar Ali, Sulema and Kazibanu. He stated that except for Sulema, he does not know when the other brothers and sisters were born. He stated about his mother's name being Manikjan and that his grandparents were also residents of village Barguri and that his parents had cast their votes in the years 1966, 1971 and 1982 in Barguri village and later, they cast their votes from Rupkhuria village in the years 1997 Page No.# 8/18 and 2013. He reiterated about the purchase of land by his father. He stated that his father expired 14 years ago. He denied that he was not the son of Intaz Ali of Barguri village and not the elder brother of the petitioner. 11. One Santanu Baruah, an official from Election office of establishment of District Commissioner, Tezpur had adduced evidence as DW3 on behalf of the Electoral Officer from the side of the petitioner. He stated that he was working in the Tezpur Election Office since 2014, and at the time of deposition he brought the Electoral Roll of 1966 and 1971 and also the Electoral Rolls of 1997 and 2013. He stated that in the voter list of 1966, the name of Intaz Ali, son of Agar Ali and Manikjan, wife of Intaz Ali appeared as serial No. 133 and 134 with regard to house no. 34, part No. 25 of village Barguri. He also stated that in the voters list of 1971, the name of Intaz Ali, son of Agar Ali and Manikjan, wife of Intaz Ali appeared at serial No. 133 and 134 against house No. 34, part no. 15 of village Barguri. He further testified that the names of Intaz Ali, son of Agar Ali and Manikjan, wife of Intaz Ali and Hazrat Ali, son of Intaz appeared as serial No. 378, 379, 380 respectively with regard to house no. 135, Part no. 33 at village Rupkhuria. 12. Similarly, in the voter list of 2013, the names of Manikjan, wife of Intaz, Hazarat Ali, son of Intaz, Amena Khatun, wife of Hazarat Ali and Iman Ali, son of Intaz appeared. In cross-examination on behalf of the State, he stated that in the main voters list of 1966, the part number is missing, serial number is missing and no officials have certified it. He also stated that the voters list of 1971 is a carbon copy and in the main voters list of 1997, there is no seal and signature of any officials. Page No.# 9/18 13. Moidul Islam, from the office of the Sub-Registrar adduced evidence as DW4, in which he stated that he is appearing on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur and brought along with him Sale deed of 1982 dated 23.02.1982, being sale deed No. 789, volume No. 8, page 28 to 30. He stated that in the said deed, it is mentioned about selling of land to Md. Intaz Ali, son of late Agar Ali. The land is described as measuring 9 Bighas, 3 Kathas, 8 Lessas, situated at Rupkhuria village vide Patta No. 43 (old), 2 (new), Dag No. 67 (Old) and 191 (New). It is stated that there is another land measuring 3 Kathas, 8 lechas being Dag No. 43 (Old), 3 (new), Patta No. 218 (old), 209 (new) of the same village. He further stated about another piece of land measuring 3 Kathas, 11 lechas, Dag No. 253 (old) and 190 (new). He stated that Exhibit (C) is the registered deed he brought from their office and Exhibit (1) is the register book of their office of the year 1982 and Exhibit 1(2) is the signature of the Deputy Commissioner of that time, as reflected in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen Exhibit (C) at the time of his evidence. 14. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid pleading and testimony, the petitioner as proceedee has tried to make up her case about not being a foreign national, and to persuade the Tribunal to answer the reference in her favour. 15. Mr. I. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that she is a natural-born citizen of India by birth and that the learned Foreigners Tribunal made error in law and facts in declaring her to be a foreigner. It is submitted that sufficient evidence was adduced by the proceedee, but the Tribunal overlooked relevant evidence and misapplied Page No.# 10/18 and misappreciated the evidence on record, to come to a negative finding against the petitioner as proceedee. 16. It is submitted that the opinion is not rendered in terms of the decisions of this Court governing the case, and that it would be an appropriate case for interference by this court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 17. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following decisions:- (i) Abdul Khalique Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2013 (1) GLT 941, (ii) Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2021 (3) GLT 85, (iii) Karim Ali @ Abdul Karim Vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors, WP(C) 7361 of 2017, (iv) Md. Sujab Ali Vs. Union of India and 6 Ors, WP(C) 2221 of 2020, (v) Dolgobinda Paricha Vs. Nimai Charan Misra & Ors reported in 1959 SCC OnLine SC 210. 18. On the other hand, Mr. J. Payeng, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6, NRC, Home & Political Department, submits and contends that the petitioner as proceedee has failed in adducing sufficient link documentary evidence in support of her contentions of not being a foreign national. It is submitted that the testimony of DW 2, the projected brother of the petitioner was discussed and negated by the learned Tribunal on valid grounds. It is submitted that the proceedee could not establish her nationality through Intaz Ali and Manikjan. And in this regard, the learned counsel submits that till 1997, there are no voter list of her parents. It is submitted that the scope of certiorari jurisdiction is limited as per the well established position of law. And in this context, it is submitted that the Page No.# 11/18 impugned order/opinion does not suffer from any perversity so as to justify the exercise of such certiorari jurisdiction. 19. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent side relies upon the following decisions:- (i) M. Yogendra & Ors Vs. Leelamma N. & Ors reported in (2009) 15 SCC 184, (ii) Khalek @ Raphik Ali Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors, WP(C) 8095 of 2019, (iii) Asia Khatoon Vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors, WP(C) 4020 of 2017, (iv) Nur Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347. 20. We have perused the contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition, the pleadings before the learned Tribunal, the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, including the exhibited documents. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. We have also considered the decisions relied upon by the learned counsels on both the sides. 21. Before proceeding further, the basic principles governing the subject matter may be enumerated herein below. Under section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946, the burden is upon the proceedee to show that he or she is not a foreign national. Only then the proceedee would be successfully defeating the reference sent to the Foreigners Tribunal, raising questions on the nationality of the proceedee. 22. Such a burden, however, has to be discharged by the standard of preponderance of probability. Further, in a catena of decisions rendered by Page No.# 12/18 this Court, it has been held that the main ingredient of discharging that burden is to prove through evidence, including essentially documentary evidence, about linkage of the proceedee with an ancestor who was an Indian citizen prior to 25-03-1971. 23. In the instant case, the proceedee has exhibited during the proceeding, the certified copy of the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1971, whereby the names of Intaz Ali and Manikjan figure with regard to No. 77 Tezpur LAC and No. 73 Tezpur LAC, respectively. The village is indicated as Barguri. The said Intaz Ali and Manikjan are stated to be the projected father and mother, respectively, of the petitioner. Apart from adducing such evidence from the side of the petitioner, an employee from the Election office of Tezpur District Establishment has also adduced evidence as DW3. And in the said testimony, DW3 has stated in the cross-examination part about certain infirmities in the said voter list, which have already been narrated above. Thus, in cross-examination by the state, he has stated that while voter list of 1971 is a carbon copy, with regard to the voter list of 1966, part number is missing, serial number is missing, and no officials have certified it. 24. These aspects dilute the evidentiary value of these two crucial exhibited documents, which have been exhibited as Exhibit A and B, respectively. However, even if these aspects of infirmities is overlooked, the said documents would only indicate that Intaz Ali and Manikjan, stated to be wife of Intaz Ali, were citizens of India in 1966 and 1971. 25. Similarly, the Exhibit C, exhibited by the petitioner as proceedee pertains to a sale deed of 1982, whereby the said Intaz Ali had purchased a land from another person in the village Barguri. And even this document Page No.# 13/18 would indicate his presence in India in 1982. In any case, if the Exhibit A and B are accepted for a moment, overlooking the infirmities, they would have only indicated - leaving aside the sale deed also - that the said Intaz Ali and Manikjan were Indian citizens in 1971 and 1966. 26. The names of Intaz Ali and Manikjan appear in the voters list of 1997, exhibited as Exhibit D, along with one Hazrat Ali, projected to be the brother of the petitioner and son of Intaz Ali. In the said voters list, Hazrat Ali is indicated as the son of Intaz Ali. However, one aspect cannot be overlooked is that there is a considerable gap, in terms of elapse of time, between the electoral roll of 1971, featuring the names of Intaz Ali and Manikjan, and the next exhibited electoral list in 1997, figuring the names of Intaz Ali and Manikjan, along with the said Hazarat Ali. 27. In 2013 voters list of No. 73, Tezpur LAC, the names of Manik Jan, Hazrat Ali, Amena Khatun and Iman Ali figure. Manikjan is indicated as the wife of Intaz Ali; Hazrat Ali is indicated as son of Intaz Ali; Amena Khatun is indicated as wife of Hazrat Ali and Iman Ali is indicated as son of Intaz Ali. The name of Intaz Ali does not figure in this list, as he stated to have been expired in the meantime, as per the testimony adduced by DW1 and DW2. 28. From the point of view of the petitioner, Sulema Khatun, it was extremely important for her name to have figured in this list of 2013, as because the name of Manikjan, her projected mother, figures in the said list, against serial No. 531. However, though the names of Hazrat Ali and Iman Ali, projected to be her brothers, figured in the list, but the name of the petitioner, Sulema Khatun, does not figure in the said list. Of course, the petitioner and her brother Iman Ali, adducing evidence as DW1 and Page No.# 14/18 DW2 have contended, that in the intervening years, the petitioner got married to one Sultan Ahmed of village Bhojkhowa and started residing there along with her husband and other family members. 29. There is no document adduced by the petitioner regarding her marriage with the said Sultan Ahmed, after which she started residing in her matrimonial home. Unfortunately for the petitioner, in none of the voters lists of 1966, 1971, 1997 and 2013, exhibited from the side of the petitioner, as proceedee before the learned Tribunal - her name figures along with either or both of her parents. 30. As already mentioned, her father had expired by the time the list of 2013 came out, but her mother was alive and her mother’s name figured in the list of 2013, along with that of her projected brothers, but her own name did not figure in that list. Of course, the contention from her side is, in the meantime, she got married and started staying in her matrimonial house at a different location. Nevertheless, at the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that in none of the voter lists exhibited, the name of the petitioner, Sulema Khatun, figures with any of her parents. In fact, there is also no voter list where the name of the petitioner, Sulema Khatun, figures along with her projected brothers, Hazrat Ali and Iman Ali, one of whom has adduced evidence as DW2, being Iman Ali. In this context also, the significant gap between the voter list of 1971 and the voter list of 1997 cannot be overlooked. 31. In the case of Nur Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347, a Coordinate bench of this Court has clearly laid down that in proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal, mere oral evidence would not suffice and that documentary evidence is essential to show the linkage of Page No.# 15/18 the proceedee with an Indian citizen ancestor prior to the cut-off date of 1971. 32. The underlying philosophy and principle behind such an exposition is that in the very nature of the proceedings under the citizenship laws, the role of documentary evidence towards building such linkage with the Indian citizen ancestor is essential and that same cannot be allowed to be substituted by mere oral evidence. The decision in Dolgobinda Paricha (supra), which was also discussed in Md. Sujab Ali (supra), relied upon by the petitioner side, pertained to consideration of oral evidence in terms of section 50 of the Evidence Act. The said provision of the Evidence Act pertains to evidence adduced by people in the know of relationships. 33. In this case, undoubtedly, the projected brother of the petitioner has adduced evidence in her favour. But in the absence of an electoral roll where her name figures along with either her brother or one of her parents, the said oral testimony of her projected brother Iman Ali as DW2 would not be sufficient to discharge the burden under section 9. To that extent, the principles engrafted in section 50 of the Evidence Act cannot be said to be prevailing over the principle laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nur Begum (supra) about the essentiality of documentary evidence towards discharging the burden by the proceedee under section 9 of the Foreigners Act. 34. In the case of Karim Ali (supra) also, this Court considered the evidence of the petitioner's mother to be relevant and significant in the context of section 50 of the Evidence Act. Nevertheless, as already discussed in the preceding paragraph, such testimony could be corroborative of documentary evidence regarding link with Indian citizen Page No.# 16/18 ancestor. But the oral evidence could not be sufficient in a standalone manner for the proceedee to discharge the burden under section 9 of the Foreigners Act. 35. In our considered view, the decision in Haidar Ali (supra) would also not come to the aid of the petitioner as there is not a single piece of documentary evidence linking the petitioner, Sulema Khatun with her projected parents, Intaz Ali and Manikjan. 36. As already mentioned above, there is also no documentary evidence to link her with her projected brothers, Hazrat Ali and Iman Ali. For similar reasons, the decision in Abdul Khalique (supra) would also not help the petitioner to overcome the aforementioned documentary gap in her evidence regarding linkages with projected Indian citizen ancestors. 37. The respondent side has referred to the decision of Nur Begum (supra) where it has been clearly held that oral testimony alone would not be proof of citizenship. The relevant paragraph 6 of the same decision may be reproduced herein below:- “6. The statement of DW-2 i.e. Jahurun Begum, who claimed to be the mother of the petitioner, cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents showing her relationship, either to the projected grandfather, father or to the petitioner herself. 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. Surprisingly, the petitioner failed to produce a single voter list in her name even until the age of 50 years. 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, thus, falls short of being considered as cogent, reliable and admissible evidence, so much so, to establish linkage of the petitioner to Page No.# 17/18 the projected grandfather, grandmother and father. The petitioner utterly failed to prove her linkage to Indian parents relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971 through cogent, reliable and admissible documents.” (emphasis added) 38. The decision of Asia Khatoon (supra) relied upon by the respondent side has also laid down the same principle and the relevant paragraph may be reproduced herein below:- “…The statement of DW-2 i.e. Amir Uddin, who claimed to be the father of the petitioner, cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents showing his relationship to the petitioner. In this we would observe 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, thus, falls short of being considered as cogent, reliable and admissible evidence, so much so, to establish linkage of the petitioner to him…”(emphasis added) 39. In Khalek @ Raphik Ali (supra), one of the aspects gone into by the court was the limited scope of interference by writ court in exercise of certiorati jurisdiction with regard to findings of fact. The relevant paragraph 21 may be reproduced herein below:- “21. Before embarking to adjudicate the issue involved vis-a-vis the submissions and the materials on record, we are reminded that a Writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would confine its powers to examine the decision making process only. Further, the present case pertains to a proceeding of a Tribunal which has given its findings based on the facts. It is trite law that findings of facts are not liable to be interfered with by a Writ Court under its certiorari jurisdiction.” 40. Thus, upon considering all the materials including the referred case laws, we are unable to opine that the petitioner as proceedee before the Page No.# 18/18 learned Tribunal was able to show evidence to link her with either Intaz Ali or Manikjan, her projected parents whose names figured in the voters list of 1966 and 1971. Alternatively, we hold that we are unable to find any documentary link evidence between the petitioner, Sulema Khatun and her projected Indian citizen ancestors. Consequently, there is no scope to depart from the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal about the petitioner being a foreign national who had come into India after 25- 03-1971, from the specified territory. 41. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and opinion dated 11-03-2019, rendered by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 1st, Tezpur, Sonitpur, Assam in F.T case No. 8 of 2018 (arising out of Police Enquiry No. 263 of 2017) is hereby upheld and confirmed. 42. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order passed by the order dated 02-09-2019, stands vacated. 43. Return the original TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant