Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Gauhati has held that Electoral Voter Identity Card is not a proof of citizenship. In re Md. Babul Islam v. State of Assam the court held that mere producing of Electoral ID without any evidence would not be considered as a proof of citizenship. The matter was inconsideration whether a person is a foreigner under Assam Accord of 1985 as the Foreign Tribunal, Assam declared the petitioner to be a foreigner under post 1971 stream of the Accord. Thus, challenging the order, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Gauhati.
The bench comprising of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia observed that the Assam Accord classified foreigners under three sub-categories. It stipulates that all residents of Assam who entered the state until January 1, 1966 would be 'regularised'. Those who came between 1966 and 25 March 1971 would be disenfranchised for ten years, meaning that they were to get voting rights only after expiry of 10 years from the date of their detection or declaration as foreigner. And lastly, those who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971 shall continue to be detected, deleted and expelled in accordance with the law. During the proceedings before the Foreign Tribunal, the petitioner was asked to submit the following four documents to prove his Indian Citizenship. An Electoral Photo Identity Card; A Registered Sale Deed of 1964; A Sale Deed of 1970. A Voter List of 1997 bearing his name. In the above mentioned the court said that “Electoral ID card holds no value for evidentiary value for the purpose of citizenship” having the matter of Md. Babul Islam v. State of Assam in reference.
The court held in regards with the sale deed, "Sale Deeds are private documents, therefore, they must be proved in accordance with law. In the case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal reported in (2003) 8 SSC 745, the Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position that marking of documents as exhibits and their proof are two different legal concepts. Mere production and marking of a document as exhibits cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue."
Conclusively, the bench concluded that the petitioner since he had failed to prove that he had entered the state before March 25, 1971 as per Assam Accords. Thus the bench held the petitioner to be a ‘foreigner’ under the category of post 1971 stream.
86540
103860
630
114
59824