Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Gauhati held that the School Certificate issued cannot be called as a sufficient document for evidence unless proved by the testimony of the Headmaster who has the issuing authority. Foreigners Tribunal Kamrup passed an order on one Sahera Katun, petitioner of the case to be a foreigner under the Assam Accord. It is been held that the said petitioner is found to be in stream post-1971 under the said Accord and declared the petitioner to be a foreigner. In support of her arguments the petitioner had produced 12 documents which included her school certificate consisted of her date of birth and name of her father.
In addition she had also submitted the Voters list of the years 1966, 1970, 1977, 1989, 1997, 2005 and which contained the names of her grandparents, parents and siblings respectively. The petitioner’s brother and mother gave their oral testimony. But the court held that the testimony given by the brother cannot be held valid as it was not supported by any other documents. And the petitioner’s mother did not appear for cross-examination. The court found that in order to prove her citizenship the petitioner had just given her school certificate which the court found it to be inadmissible as it was not been proved under legal testimony by the petitioner.
The court held that in the aforementioned case the headmaster being the issuing authority of the school certificate had to be examined to prove the contents of the certificate whereas this had not been done from the petitioner’s side. The court also mentioned in its judgement that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden and make proof in the vital part of upbringing the linkage between her grandparents and her parents. As held in the matter of Nur Begum V. UOI & Ors, this court made it clear that the proceedee or the person who claims to be the citizen has the burden of proof. thus in this matter the petitioner Katun, has the burden of proof but failed to support her arguments with evidential materials.
Conclusively, the court dismisses the petition and held that "As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not, the relevant facts being especially notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. This is mandated under section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1946. In the instant case and as observed above, the petitioner not only failed to discharge the burden but also utterly failed to make proof of the most crucial aspect, that is, in establishing linkage to her projected parents and/or the grandfather."
86540
103860
630
114
59824